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.

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?

When he refuses to answer he means of course he and the Dems will pack the courts if they get the chance, but he doesn't want give Trump and the GOP an excuse to do it if they get the chance.

Well that should be a good indication of just how weak and incompetent of a president he would make. Joe Biden won't even be honest with and straightforward with his own voters.

This, of course from your perspective, will sound like I'm taking up for him but I'm really not saying the following to do that.

Its a good piece of political gamesmanship akin to the "Make America Great" BS. Nobody knows what it means so you can say you've done it without doing anything at all. Joe stating that he would or would not do it would mean nothing since the President can't do that unilaterally or perhaps, even legally. By not answering, he doesn't lose anything while maintaining the deniability of having said yes or no.

Something the politically childish blob will never understand.

 

[Votto]

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.

No they should not pack the court, but you will vote for them anyway.

So who gives a damn? They don't. They will always have your vote regardless.

 

[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.

No they should not pack the court, but you will vote for them anyway.

So who gives a damn? They don't. They will always have your vote regardless.

Wow...and you support the blob on every single thing?

 

[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.

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

Gives the same issue, people will figure out they can out wait a Justice, you would have sides fighting over timing as well as legal wrangling.

 

[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.

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?

You aren't mad at big money, you are mad at money from the side you don't like. You can't restrict someone's speech just because they are a CEO of a corporation, just like you can't force someone to bake a cake they don't want to bake.

 

[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!

Gives the same issue, people will figure out they can out wait a Justice, you would have sides fighting over timing as well as legal wrangling.

Yes.

I'd rather have that than have someone who is so far removed from the bedrock zeitgeist that they can't effectively rule on an issue and lean too heavily on their younger clerks for guidance.

 

[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.

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

Gives the same issue, people will figure out they can out wait a Justice, you would have sides fighting over timing as well as legal wrangling.

Yes.

I'd rather have that than have someone who is so far removed from the bedrock zeitgeist that they can't effectively rule on an issue and lean too heavily on their younger clerks for guidance.

I think in this specific situation the devil we know is better than the devil we don't know.

 

[Shelzin]

Wow...and you support the blob on every single thing?

No I do not... I respect what you are doing here.

 

[Claudette]

Only Congress can raise the number of Justices.

A sitting POTUS and the Senate can fill the seats.

We sure don't need to expand it. There are enough SC justices to make decisions. We don't need any more.

 

[sartre play]

Republicans should be true to their word. NO supreme court nominees in an election year.

 

[Norman]

Democrats always start cheating as they start losing. They never do the honest thing of looking inside if there could be something wrong with what they are chewing. They are ideologically devoted communists, or at best can not condemn the communists.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Wow...you are still insanely stupid....

 

[2aguy]

Democrats always start cheating as they start losing. They never do the honest thing of looking inside if there could be something wrong with what they are chewing. They are ideologically devoted communists, or at best can not condemn the communists.

They cheat even when they aren't losing....

 

[2aguy]

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's more than just money....remember what Citizens United was about...had the decision gone he other way, the government would have been able to keep movies and books from being released before an election.....

People forget what the case was really about...........

The case arose after Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, sought to air and advertise a film critical of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary elections.

This would have been a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which prohibited any corporation or labor union from making an "electioneering communication" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time.

Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[candycorn]

Wow...and you support the blob on every single thing?

No I do not... I respect what you are doing here.

Yet you think I support Biden on every single thing...

 

[candycorn]

Democrats always start cheating as they start losing. They never do the honest thing of looking inside if there could be something wrong with what they are chewing. They are ideologically devoted communists, or at best can not condemn the communists.

And when trump starts losing...you guys will cray that you were cheated...you've been doing it for about 6 months already.

 

[Shelzin]

Yet you think I support Biden on every single thing...

I work with what you give me. You want me to believe something else, you have to give me something else. Ok... This is a good start. *shrugs*

You are still voting for Biden, because this issue isn't a big enough one for you not to... But it's an issue you do care about... That's good thing.

 

[candycorn]

Yet you think I support Biden on every single thing...

I work with what you give me. You want me to believe something else, you have to give me something else. Ok... This is a good start. *shrugs*

You are still voting for Biden, because this issue isn't a big enough one for you not to... But it's an issue you do care about... That's good thing.

It will never happen so this is not an issue to care about.
Which bring us to the amendment to stop the foolish innuendo and remove the obvious next step of...."They'll pack the court if we don't so let's do it!" which will be coming our way down the road.

 

[2aguy]

Democrats always start cheating as they start losing. They never do the honest thing of looking inside if there could be something wrong with what they are chewing. They are ideologically devoted communists, or at best can not condemn the communists.

And when trump starts losing...you guys will cray that you were cheated...you've been doing it for about 6 months already.

You morons have been doing it since 2016...........and breaking the law to try to get rid of Trump....

 

[candycorn]

Democrats always start cheating as they start losing. They never do the honest thing of looking inside if there could be something wrong with what they are chewing. They are ideologically devoted communists, or at best can not condemn the communists.

Meanwhile back in reality...

California Election Officials Order GOP To Remove Unofficial Ballot Boxes Set Up In Parts Of The State

The California GOP has defended its actions by comparing it to “ballot harvesting” by Democrats.

www.forbes.com