Senator Warren wants to pack 4 more judges on the Supreme Court

[Kondor3]

Elizabeth Warren has said 'it's time' to start packing the Supreme Court, claiming that the current set of judges 'threaten the democratic foundations of our nation.'
She said she supported expanding the high court by at least four seats and urged Congress to act after the 'extremist' justices upheld the 'racist Muslim ban' and 'threatened to eliminate Roe v. Wade.'

Elizabeth Warren calls for expansion of the Supreme Court

The progressive Senator claimed the 'radical court' had 'trampled on the Constitution' and urged Congress to restore 'balance and integrity to the broken institution.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

Comment:
Warren is a delusional far left extremist.
There was no "Muslim ban" and Muslims are not a race.
Reversing Roe v Wade would just make abortion a State issue.
The real threat to our democracy are the corrupt Democrat Party's abuses of power.
Obama illegally used the IRS, CIA, FBI, DOJ and FISA court as political weapons, and he got away with it.
The corrupt Democrat Senator Adam Schiff is fabricating evidence in a 110% political witch hunt.
The corrupt Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton illegally destroyed incriminating evidence, and she got away with it.
The Democrat Party's crazy Russian Collusion conspiracy and the Mueller Report was a thinly veiled coup attempt against President Trump.
Pelosi's two bogus impeachments against Trump were a blow against our democracy.
The Democrats are using the Tech Giants to censor political opinions.
Blocking Voter ID laws and mandating Mail-In ballots are a threat to legitimate secure elections and a threat to our democracy.
But finally, packing the Supreme Court with far left extremist judges does not girder our democracy, it does the opposite.
The Voters of MA should be ashamed of themselves.

Warren (and others who think like her on this score) are wrong. I hope their idea never comes to fruition.

 

[Kondor3]

Like allowing the Texas abortion law to stand
Blatantly unconstitutional

That's no reason to expand the Court again.

When does it stop?

When we have Three Hundred and Twenty-One SCOTUS Justices, in the year 2121, or some-such?

Just because the Court is too Liberal or too Conservative for one's taste, for a generation or so, is no good reason to expand the Court.

It's gotta stop someplace.

Might as well be exactly and right where we are now.

Enough already.

No expansion.

 

[22lcidw]

That's no reason to expand the Court again.

When does it stop?

When we have Three Hundred and Twenty-One SCOTUS Justices, in the year 2121, or some-such?

Just because the Court is too Liberal or too Conservative for one's taste, for a generation or so, is no good reason to expand the Court.

It's gotta stop someplace.

Might as well be exactly and right where we are now.

Enough already.

No expansion.

More people are losing faith in the federal government. We can make it a total cartoon thing if needed.

 

[Lesh]

SCOTUS doesn't reflect the electorate. Its purpose is to rule soley on the constitutionality of laws, not their popularity.

It would be nice if it kept to that purpose.

But being human these Justices don't do that...

And they have been appointed by a party that only represents about 40% of America

 

[Lesh]

Just because the Court is too Liberal or too Conservative for one's taste, for a generation or so, is no good reason to expand the Court.

How long is a generation?

Thirty fucking years?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Does anyone else not see the problem with what is being argued here? The mere fact that we fight over the political leanings of the scotus justices should be an indicator that something needs to change.

Justice should be for justices' sake, not for politics.

 

[Meister]

In some places yes, that’s why you lost 6 of the last 7 popular votes for president?

And???? Not me, but the republicans lost 6 of 7, and they deal with it.
So you can deal with the Justice picks.

 

[Meister]

Hmm, no, 50 votes plus the VP tiebreaker. We could probably add 10 judges, if we want.

Got anything else?

Yeah, Manchin is smart enough to not fall for the left's stupidity. 51-49
Too bad for the goofballs.

 

[otto105]

And???? Not me, but the republicans lost 6 of 7, and they deal with it.
So you can deal with the Justice picks.

Yeah, they're dealing with it by trying to limit voting.

 

[AZrailwhale]

It would be nice if it kept to that purpose.

But being human these Justices don't do that...

And they have been appointed by a party that only represents about 40% of America

They are far more likely than the democratic apparatchiks like Kagan and Sotomayor to vote based on a constitutional basis.

 

[blackhawk]

Then the Republicans will add more the next time they get the chance and so on and so on until the court becomes irrelevant.

 

[Colin norris]

Then the Republicans will add more the next time they get the chance and so on and so on until the court becomes irrelevant.

We'll trump started it by appointing republicans. It's pay back time.

 

[DBA]

Argumentum ad absurdum.

The use of ridiculous hyperbole in the absence of a coherent argument

But it isn't. Why add 4? Why not add 10? The premise is wrong and that is the point.

 

[otto105]

They are far more likely than the democratic apparatchiks like Kagan and Sotomayor to vote based on a constitutional basis.

Sure, sure...

 

[M14 Shooter]

He stacked it with republicans no matter how embarrassed you are about it.

Just like Democrats stack it with liberals.
So?

 

[DBA]

And they have been appointed by a party that only represents about 40% of America

That isn't how it is supposed to work, but that is exactly how it works for liberals. Judges aren't supposed to represent a certain segment of the population, they are supposed to uphold the Constitution and interpret existing law, not be activists.

 

[DBA]

Sure, sure...

Republican justices do not vote in lockstep as often as the Democratic justices. Case in point, Roberts strayed from the other Republican justices with regards to ObamaCare. When is the last time a Democratic justice did so in such a consequential case?

 

[M14 Shooter]

How long is a generation?
Thirty fucking years?

You have no one to blame but Hillary Clinton.
Well, her and the idiots that nominated her in 2016.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And they have been appointed by a party that only represents about 40% of America

You say this like it matters.

 

[BackAgain]

I read in a history book or three (years ago) about the tawdry attempt by the Democrat Party to arrange for some “court packing.” It got shot the fuck down, then. (Fuck you, FDR.)

Now, Senator ‘Blizzurd’ Pocahontas (D), having no knowledge about history, wants to try that shit again. She can go fuck herself.