Should SCOTUS be increased to 13?

[WorldWatcher]

1. I'm actually okay giving each president one USSC pick, replacing the oldest justice, or a vacancy, filled after he leaves office unless its a vacancy, if his first choice fails (like Garland) he can keep selecting until he gets one approved.

2. All 13 justices would need to hear every case.

3. The argument for keeping 9 justices is that technology gives access to whatever they need instantly, they don't need to travel by horseback.

Fair enough, just wanted you to know there are reasons to increase the court and a method not to do it to benefit one party in the short term.

WW

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That was awesome!

And there you go. Teach your fellow trumpazees how to be so honest.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And then a Republican president and Senate can expand it to 17 or 21.

Sure they can. So?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

/---/ It's odd you didn't share this when Trump was president. Very odd indeed.

You're the only one who thinks so.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Fair enough, just wanted you to know there are reasons to increase the court and a method not to do it to benefit one party in the short term.

WW

Like doing so with a 50/50 senate and a moderate Democrat president.

Like we have right now.

 

[Mac-7]

And there you go. Teach your fellow trumpazees how to be so honest.

Childish name-calling is all libs know how to do

 

[justoffal]

View attachment 911021

I think so! After all, there are 13 circuits now. What do you think?

Well there appears to be a logical precedent for it. If What you say is true it would seem to make sense. As long as there is some limiting factor to the appointments otherwise with each turn of power the court will continue to grow to ridiculous proportions.

 

[ThisIsMe]

We count votes, not square miles.

Most of the country is not red. Most of the country is blue. And democrats will once again get more votes than republicans do in 2024.

Looks like there are more red states than blue, and many of those blue states are only blue because of the high population cities which are surrounded by rural red areas.

We count votes, not square miles.

We count electoral college votes, which represents those square miles. In a majority rule society, you’d be correct, but we don’t. Until we change the cotus, it will always be a EC society.

The people in all of those red states don’t want the people from all of the blue cities being able to always negate their votes.

And democrats will once again get more votes than republicans do in 2024.

That’s fine, and if you also get more electoral votes, then you will win, but popular vote doesn’t count in this country.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The Court was expanded to the current 9 because there were nine circuits at the time.

There are currently 13

That may be, but the number of circuits has nothing to do with how many scotus judges there are. I’m not sure there is any relevance…it’s not like the justices represent the circuits.


I’m not sure why this would have any bearing on the number of justices.

If you want more justices, Congress would need to change the number.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Actually, there were 10 Circuit Courts and in the Judiciary Act of 1869 the number of Circuits was reduced to 9 with a Justice for each of the 9.

So ya, the 9 is based on the number of Circuit Court Districts at the time.

WW

But they are not related to each other, and the number of districts has no relevance to the number of justices

 

[ThisIsMe]

Am I blaming the Republicans for how the system is? No.

I'm telling you the Republicans won't change this system because it benefits them the most.

I've been pushing for change for a long, long, long time. Go search "Proportional Representation" again my name on this forum if you like.

Yes, they do. Obama and Biden both got over 51%. A republican hasn't got 51% of the vote since the 1980s.

You literally don't understand how the political system would change the political scene in the US with Proportional Representation.

Saying "The Democrats would win everything" is total nonsense.

In Germany they don't have two parties. They have SIX.
In Denmark they don't have two parties. They have TEN.

People vote for issues, not for whatever bullshit the Reps and Dems decide to spout at any particular time.

People have choices, they will punish parties they don't like by voting for a party on the same wing, but with different policies to punish them. They'll vote for smaller parties because they like what the smaller parties have to say.

You know the state that voted the most for Trump in 2020 was CA right?

I'm telling you the Republicans won't change this system because it benefits them the most

And you want it changed because popular
vote would benefit you the most, so who’s wrong here?

Yes, they do. Obama and Biden both got over 51%. A republican hasn't got 51% of the vote since the 1980s.

And that isn’t required to become president, only 270 electoral votes.

You literally don't understand how the political system would change the political scene in the US with Proportional Representation.

sure I do, it would probably give dems a permanent White House. Red states would be left voiceless.

Saying "The Democrats would win everything" is total nonsense.

Since dems do generally win the popular vote, it’s not nonsense. If we went that route, they’d at least have a lock on the presidency.

In Germany they don't have two parties. They have SIX.
In Denmark they don't have two parties. They have TEN.

We’re not Denmark or Germany and we will likely never have any other party win the White House other than repubs or dems.

People vote for issues, not for whatever bullshit the Reps and Dems decide to spout at any particular time.

I disagree. I think most people don’t even know what the issues are. They just vote because CNN or Fox News said something and they believed it, and they hate trump/biden so they vote.

Most people aren’t even political. They just vote based on what they think their party stands for.

Go watch some of these “man on the street” interviews, there are a lot of people that don’t even know what their party stands for.

You know the state that voted the most for Trump in 2020 was CA right?

Sure, but he didn’t win the electoral votes, so what does it matter? I’ve heard that a lot of rural California is actually red, which goes back to my original premise that it’s the high density population areas that win give the democrats a lot of their victories.

However, if you can get the cotus changed, I say go for it. That’s how our system works.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Actually it was. There were 10 Circuit Court Districts prior to 1869, in those Days the Circuit Courts actually - you know - traveled the circuits and there were 10 Supreme Court Justices, one for each Circuit.

The Judiciary Act of 1869 reduced the number of Circuits to 9 and lowered the Supreme Court from 10 to 9. One for each Circuit.

It's just history.

WW

The cotus nerve of any mandated on the number of justices

 

[Lesh]

This Court is clearly partisan and dysfunctional

Expanding it just makes sense

Conservatives who have been the beneficiaries of the current Court will sqeak but Fuckem.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Looks like there are more red states than blue, and many of those blue states are only blue because of the high population cities which are surrounded by rural red areas

What a bizarre and anti democratic thing to say.

Those states are blue because more democrat voters live there.

And we count votes not states or square miles. When are right wingers gonna get this through their heads?

 

[Cellblock2429]

And you want it changed because popular
vote would benefit you the most, so who’s wrong here?




And that isn’t required to become president, only 270 electoral votes.


sure I do, it would probably give dems a permanent White House. Red states would be left voiceless.



Since dems do generally win the popular vote, it’s not nonsense. If we went that route, they’d at least have a lock on the presidency.



We’re not Denmark or Germany and we will likely never have any other party win the White House other than repubs or dems.



I disagree. I think most people don’t even know what the issues are. They just vote because CNN or Fox News said something and they believed it, and they hate trump/biden so they vote.

Most people aren’t even political. They just vote based on what they think their party stands for.

Go watch some of these “man on the street” interviews, there are a lot of people that don’t even know what their party stands for.



Sure, but he didn’t win the electoral votes, so what does it matter? I’ve heard that a lot of rural California is actually red, which goes back to my original premise that it’s the high density population areas that win give the democrats a lot of their victories.

However, if you can get the cotus changed, I say go for it. That’s how our system works.

/——/ True, and rural update NY is Red.

 

[playtime]

yes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What a bizarre and anti democratic thing to say.

Those states are blue because more democrat voters live there.

And we count votes not states or square miles. When are right wingers gonna get this through their heads?

We count the votes of states.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We count the votes of states.

So you're saying we count votes. Agreed!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you're saying we count votes. Agreed!

Yes, every state votes.

 

[Lesh]

Yes, every state votes.

States don’t vote

People vote