Against Packing the Court

[candycorn]

The Biden/Harris administration--if there is one--shouldn't pack the court; i.e. add more justices. Its a dumb idea that violates the norms Americans have come to accept.

There are norms that need to be exploded and I'll get into that in a moment but as far as the court goes, adding justices does not in any measurable way increase the knowledge base of the court, it does not and will not result in better decisions, more decisions, or even what one could reliably call "correct decisions". Now, as a liberal, I'm certain that there will be court rulings that I disagree with. I imagine that there are many--in fact I know there are--decisions that conservatives are not going to agree with either.

In fact, the next administration, Biden I or Trump II should lead the way in trying to get a constitutional amendment to permanently limit the number of justices to 9 judges. I think it should also put hard and fast requirements that every nominee to the Federal Courts gets an up or down vote by the Senate and a term limit for SCOTUS judges.

But at the very least, limit the number to 9 judges. No more, no less and a vote has to happen within 90 days of a replacement being nominated.

 

[JGalt]

The Biden/Harris administration--if there is one--shouldn't pack the court; i.e. add more justices. Its a dumb idea that violates the norms Americans have come to accept.

There are norms that need to be exploded and I'll get into that in a moment but as far as the court goes, adding justices does not in any measurable way increase the knowledge base of the court, it does not and will not result in better decisions, more decisions, or even what one could reliably call "correct decisions". Now, as a liberal, I'm certain that there will be court rulings that I disagree with. I imagine that there are many--in fact I know there are--decisions that conservatives are not going to agree with either.

In fact, the next administration, Biden I or Trump II should lead the way in trying to get a constitutional amendment to permanently limit the number of justices to 9 judges. I think it should also put hard and fast requirements that every nominee to the Federal Courts gets an up or down vote by the Senate and a term limit for SCOTUS judges.

But at the very least, limit the number to 9 judges. No more, no less and a vote has to happen within 90 days of a replacement being nominated.

The issue isn't what I think one way or the other about it, as I'm not running for President on the Democratic ticket.

The issue is what Joe Biden thinks about packing the court, and he refuses to answer. Why will he not elaborate on that subject?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The voters were warned in 2016 that a Trump administration would result in a Supreme Court where the people could no longer seek relief from state and local governments violating their rights and protected liberties.

It’s too late now; the people have only themselves to blame, the consequence of their willful ignorance and stupidity.

 

[occupied]

As long as it is done to restore an ideological balance to the court that more closely matches that of the country I see no problem with it. Should we abide a partisan court that will hand down one unpopular ruling after another just to satisfy an ever shrinking conservative demographic? We should at least put the conservative court on notice that if they do another citizen's united decision that strikes directly at the heart of democracy or curtails in any way rights Americans currently have then steps will be taken.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As long as it is done to restore an ideological balance to the court that more closely matches that of the country I see no problem with it. Should we abide a partisan court that will hand down one unpopular ruling after another just to satisfy an ever shrinking conservative demographic? We should at least put the conservative court on notice that if they do another citizen's united decision that strikes directly at the heart of democracy or curtails in any way rights Americans currently have then steps will be taken.

Better yet: vote Republican state lawmakers out of office – no more abortion bans or anti-LBGTQ+ legislation.

Problem solved.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

As long as it is done to restore an ideological balance to the court that more closely matches that of the country I see no problem with it. Should we abide a partisan court that will hand down one unpopular ruling after another just to satisfy an ever shrinking conservative demographic? We should at least put the conservative court on notice that if they do another citizen's united decision that strikes directly at the heart of democracy or curtails in any way rights Americans currently have then steps will be taken.

Better yet: vote Republican state lawmakers out of office – no more abortion bans or anti-LBGTQ+ legislation.

Problem solved.

ROTFLMAO

 

[Sun Devil 92]

As long as it is done to restore an ideological balance to the court that more closely matches that of the country I see no problem with it. Should we abide a partisan court that will hand down one unpopular ruling after another just to satisfy an ever shrinking conservative demographic? We should at least put the conservative court on notice that if they do another citizen's united decision that strikes directly at the heart of democracy or curtails in any way rights Americans currently have then steps will be taken.

Why don't you take that step....say at Angel Falls.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

As long as it is done to restore an ideological balance to the court that more closely matches that of the country I see no problem with it. Should we abide a partisan court that will hand down one unpopular ruling after another just to satisfy an ever shrinking conservative demographic? We should at least put the conservative court on notice that if they do another citizen's united decision that strikes directly at the heart of democracy or curtails in any way rights Americans currently have then steps will be taken.

Better yet: vote Republican state lawmakers out of office – no more abortion bans or anti-LBGTQ+ legislation.

Problem solved.

Anti T that’s it not LBGQ

 

[XponentialChaos]

I'd like to see them drop this idea and just accept it for what it is.

Elections have consequences.

Side note: I don't think we'll ever see another person make it to the supreme court when the opposition party has control of the Senate. Not in our lifetimes at least.

 

[JGalt]

So not one single logical explanation from any Biden-supporter, as to why he won't reveal his stance on adding additional justices to the Supreme Court?

 

[martybegan]

The Biden/Harris administration--if there is one--shouldn't pack the court; i.e. add more justices. Its a dumb idea that violates the norms Americans have come to accept.

There are norms that need to be exploded and I'll get into that in a moment but as far as the court goes, adding justices does not in any measurable way increase the knowledge base of the court, it does not and will not result in better decisions, more decisions, or even what one could reliably call "correct decisions". Now, as a liberal, I'm certain that there will be court rulings that I disagree with. I imagine that there are many--in fact I know there are--decisions that conservatives are not going to agree with either.

In fact, the next administration, Biden I or Trump II should lead the way in trying to get a constitutional amendment to permanently limit the number of justices to 9 judges. I think it should also put hard and fast requirements that every nominee to the Federal Courts gets an up or down vote by the Senate and a term limit for SCOTUS judges.

But at the very least, limit the number to 9 judges. No more, no less and a vote has to happen within 90 days of a replacement being nominated.

I could live with that, except the term limit. Term limits would lead to any side wanting a favorable court delaying until they think they could get one.

Better for the term to be indeterminate.

 

[martybegan]

As long as it is done to restore an ideological balance to the court that more closely matches that of the country I see no problem with it. Should we abide a partisan court that will hand down one unpopular ruling after another just to satisfy an ever shrinking conservative demographic? We should at least put the conservative court on notice that if they do another citizen's united decision that strikes directly at the heart of democracy or curtails in any way rights Americans currently have then steps will be taken.

Progressives only bitch about partisan courts when they aren't getting their way.

The only reason you don't like Citizen's United is because it added more players to the typical "outside money" game that is usually played by things like Unions, Thinktanks, and advocacy groups. Corporations didn't get special privileges, they just got what everyone else was able to do.

 

[Missourian]

The Biden/Harris administration--if there is one--shouldn't pack the court; i.e. add more justices. Its a dumb idea that violates the norms Americans have come to accept.

There are norms that need to be exploded and I'll get into that in a moment but as far as the court goes, adding justices does not in any measurable way increase the knowledge base of the court, it does not and will not result in better decisions, more decisions, or even what one could reliably call "correct decisions". Now, as a liberal, I'm certain that there will be court rulings that I disagree with. I imagine that there are many--in fact I know there are--decisions that conservatives are not going to agree with either.

In fact, the next administration, Biden I or Trump II should lead the way in trying to get a constitutional amendment to permanently limit the number of justices to 9 judges. I think it should also put hard and fast requirements that every nominee to the Federal Courts gets an up or down vote by the Senate and a term limit for SCOTUS judges.

But at the very least, limit the number to 9 judges. No more, no less and a vote has to happen within 90 days of a replacement being nominated.

How about the left just stop demanding it and Biden come out and say..."The Biden/Harris administration--if there is one--shouldn't pack the court; i.e. add more justices. Its a dumb idea that violates the norms Americans have come to accept."

Crisis averted...no Constitutional Amendment necessary.

I'll tell you why...because if Biden says that...he loses the progressive vote.

You can just say "the progressive wing of the Democrat party is unhinged...off the rails...they've lost the plot...but our candidate must pander to these nutjobs because the crazies are thisclose to running the Democrat party".

You can say it...we all know it's true.

The fact of the matter is...as difficult as it may be for either of us to admit...you are now closer to the center of MY party than you are to the center of yours.

 

[Agit8r]

If congress decides to change the number, so be it. The public knows that one failed one term president shouldn't have nominated 3 justices and over 100 federal judges. The majority of Americans won't care if it is remedied

 

[candycorn]

The Biden/Harris administration--if there is one--shouldn't pack the court; i.e. add more justices. Its a dumb idea that violates the norms Americans have come to accept.

There are norms that need to be exploded and I'll get into that in a moment but as far as the court goes, adding justices does not in any measurable way increase the knowledge base of the court, it does not and will not result in better decisions, more decisions, or even what one could reliably call "correct decisions". Now, as a liberal, I'm certain that there will be court rulings that I disagree with. I imagine that there are many--in fact I know there are--decisions that conservatives are not going to agree with either.

In fact, the next administration, Biden I or Trump II should lead the way in trying to get a constitutional amendment to permanently limit the number of justices to 9 judges. I think it should also put hard and fast requirements that every nominee to the Federal Courts gets an up or down vote by the Senate and a term limit for SCOTUS judges.

But at the very least, limit the number to 9 judges. No more, no less and a vote has to happen within 90 days of a replacement being nominated.

I could live with that, except the term limit. Term limits would lead to any side wanting a favorable court delaying until they think they could get one.

Better for the term to be indeterminate.

I'd support age-outs as well. Anyone who is 80 or older...time to go!

 

[occupied]

As long as it is done to restore an ideological balance to the court that more closely matches that of the country I see no problem with it. Should we abide a partisan court that will hand down one unpopular ruling after another just to satisfy an ever shrinking conservative demographic? We should at least put the conservative court on notice that if they do another citizen's united decision that strikes directly at the heart of democracy or curtails in any way rights Americans currently have then steps will be taken.

Progressives only bitch about partisan courts when they aren't getting their way.

The only reason you don't like Citizen's United is because it added more players to the typical "outside money" game that is usually played by things like Unions, Thinktanks, and advocacy groups. Corporations didn't get special privileges, they just got what everyone else was able to do.

It didn't change anything it just made an existing problem impossible to get a handle on. It tied the hands of the American people to fight the influence of big money in politics. How else will a conservative court put the American aristocracy further beyond any possible accountability?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Biden/Harris administration--if there is one--shouldn't pack the court; i.e. add more justices. Its a dumb idea that violates the norms Americans have come to accept.

There are norms that need to be exploded and I'll get into that in a moment but as far as the court goes, adding justices does not in any measurable way increase the knowledge base of the court, it does not and will not result in better decisions, more decisions, or even what one could reliably call "correct decisions". Now, as a liberal, I'm certain that there will be court rulings that I disagree with. I imagine that there are many--in fact I know there are--decisions that conservatives are not going to agree with either.

In fact, the next administration, Biden I or Trump II should lead the way in trying to get a constitutional amendment to permanently limit the number of justices to 9 judges. I think it should also put hard and fast requirements that every nominee to the Federal Courts gets an up or down vote by the Senate and a term limit for SCOTUS judges.

But at the very least, limit the number to 9 judges. No more, no less and a vote has to happen within 90 days of a replacement being nominated.

Actually, although Biden is at liberty to express an opinion on the subject, Congress alone has the authority to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court. Biden can comment on whether he’d sign such legislation into law, of course.

Needless to say, if Republicans retain control of the Senate, the issue is moot.

 

[Shelzin]

The Biden/Harris administration--if there is one--shouldn't pack the court; i.e. add more justices. Its a dumb idea that violates the norms Americans have come to accept.

There are norms that need to be exploded and I'll get into that in a moment but as far as the court goes, adding justices does not in any measurable way increase the knowledge base of the court, it does not and will not result in better decisions, more decisions, or even what one could reliably call "correct decisions". Now, as a liberal, I'm certain that there will be court rulings that I disagree with. I imagine that there are many--in fact I know there are--decisions that conservatives are not going to agree with either.

In fact, the next administration, Biden I or Trump II should lead the way in trying to get a constitutional amendment to permanently limit the number of justices to 9 judges. I think it should also put hard and fast requirements that every nominee to the Federal Courts gets an up or down vote by the Senate and a term limit for SCOTUS judges.

But at the very least, limit the number to 9 judges. No more, no less and a vote has to happen within 90 days of a replacement being nominated.

Hey look at that... I agree with you. But umm... No... I'll leave it at that. I agree with you.

 

[candycorn]

As long as it is done to restore an ideological balance to the court that more closely matches that of the country I see no problem with it. Should we abide a partisan court that will hand down one unpopular ruling after another just to satisfy an ever shrinking conservative demographic? We should at least put the conservative court on notice that if they do another citizen's united decision that strikes directly at the heart of democracy or curtails in any way rights Americans currently have then steps will be taken.

Partisan balance? No thanks. There are more than 2 sides to any given issue.

 

[candycorn]

I'd like to see them drop this idea and just accept it for what it is.

Elections have consequences.

Side note: I don't think we'll ever see another person make it to the supreme court when the opposition party has control of the Senate. Not in our lifetimes at least.

Which is the reason for the idea of forcing the Senate to give a nominee an up or down vote; they don't have to approve a nominee...just give them a vote on the floor.