Should we have another 9 Supreme Court Justices to increase the number of cases ruled on each year?

[Thunk]

I would respectfully disagree.

They would need to be 2 separate bodies in order to hear twice the cases...it would be like having 2 umpires behind home plate. You need a FINAL decision at some point & this would throw a wrench into the mix.

What would happen when the 2 bodies disagree?

 

[miketx]

The democrat party wants to pack the Supreme Court because the courts are the one place they can pass their agenda without having to get votes for it........

My question....how about another 9 Justices on the Supreme Court independent of the 1st 9, so that more cases can be reviewed and covered each year....they would be separate and not mixed in with the first 9, taking their own cases rather than making the court 18....

I don't think this would be Unconstitutional, since the composition of the court leaves it up to congress.......right?

Of course......after Trump wins and can appoint those 9 justices...

The number of judges on the SC was set at nine, by the Judiciary Act of 1869. It would require a functional Congress and a presidential signature to change that and even if Biden somehow won, they would have to win both houses of Congress.

But the demonstains don;t care about laws.

 

[Synthaholic]

Already, in your first sentence, you lie.

or you’re ignorant as to what ‘court-packing’ means.

Court-packing is exactly what Republicans have been doing for decades, w/their final crescendo taking place as we type.

No they haven't. The number had been at 9 for over a ccentur. FDR, democrat, actually did try to pack the courts.

Another one who can’t read.

 

[Synthaholic]

The democrat party wants to pack the Supreme Court because the courts are the one place they can pass their agenda without having to get votes for it........

My question....how about another 9 Justices on the Supreme Court independent of the 1st 9, so that more cases can be reviewed and covered each year....they would be separate and not mixed in with the first 9, taking their own cases rather than making the court 18....

I don't think this would be Unconstitutional, since the composition of the court leaves it up to congress.......right?

Of course......after Trump wins and can appoint those 9 justices...

The number of judges on the SC was set at nine, by the Judiciary Act of 1869. It would require a functional Congress and a presidential signature to change that and even if Biden somehow won, they would have to win both houses of Congress.

We will.

 

[Auld Phart]

The Republicans have let it be known that if it’s legal they’ll do it, traditions and norms be damned.

They will reap what they have sown.

The Republicans have let it be known that if it’s legal they’ll do it, traditions and norms be damned.

They have?

Yes.

How do you figure?

Which public figures said that?

 

[norwegen]

Already, in your first sentence, you lie.

or you’re ignorant as to what ‘court-packing’ means.

Court-packing is exactly what Republicans have been doing for decades, w/their final crescendo taking place as we type.

Good god, you guys are stupid.

No one has been packing the supreme Court for decades. For decades, nine jurors have occupied it.

He didn’t say the supreme court. I guess you’re the stupid one.

This thread is about the supreme Court.

Did MoronATL open the wrong door again?

 

[Synthaholic]

The democrat party wants to pack the Supreme Court because the courts are the one place they can pass their agenda without having to get votes for it........

My question....how about another 9 Justices on the Supreme Court independent of the 1st 9, so that more cases can be reviewed and covered each year....they would be separate and not mixed in with the first 9, taking their own cases rather than making the court 18....

I don't think this would be Unconstitutional, since the composition of the court leaves it up to congress.......right?

Of course......after Trump wins and can appoint those 9 justices...

The number of judges on the SC was set at nine, by the Judiciary Act of 1869. It would require a functional Congress and a presidential signature to change that and even if Biden somehow won, they would have to win both houses of Congress.

But the demonstains don;t care about laws.

Adding justices is not illegal. How stupid are you, anyway?

 

[Synthaholic]

The Republicans have let it be known that if it’s legal they’ll do it, traditions and norms be damned.

They will reap what they have sown.

The Republicans have let it be known that if it’s legal they’ll do it, traditions and norms be damned.

They have?

Yes.

How do you figure?

Which public figures said that?

Watch what they do not what they say.

 

[JGalt]

The democrat party wants to pack the Supreme Court because the courts are the one place they can pass their agenda without having to get votes for it........

My question....how about another 9 Justices on the Supreme Court independent of the 1st 9, so that more cases can be reviewed and covered each year....they would be separate and not mixed in with the first 9, taking their own cases rather than making the court 18....

I don't think this would be Unconstitutional, since the composition of the court leaves it up to congress.......right?

Of course......after Trump wins and can appoint those 9 justices...

The number of judges on the SC was set at nine, by the Judiciary Act of 1869. It would require a functional Congress and a presidential signature to change that and even if Biden somehow won, they would have to win both houses of Congress.

But the demonstains don;t care about laws.

That's the point where they all get lined up against wall. The US Constitution makes provisions for that too.

 

[Auld Phart]

Already, in your first sentence, you lie.

or you’re ignorant as to what ‘court-packing’ means.

Court-packing is exactly what Republicans have been doing for decades, w/their final crescendo taking place as we type.

Good god, you guys are stupid.

No one has been packing the supreme Court for decades. For decades, nine jurors have occupied it.

He didn’t say the supreme court. I guess you’re the stupid one.

He didn’t say the supreme court.

He was off topic?

 

[miketx]

The democrat party wants to pack the Supreme Court because the courts are the one place they can pass their agenda without having to get votes for it........

My question....how about another 9 Justices on the Supreme Court independent of the 1st 9, so that more cases can be reviewed and covered each year....they would be separate and not mixed in with the first 9, taking their own cases rather than making the court 18....

I don't think this would be Unconstitutional, since the composition of the court leaves it up to congress.......right?

Of course......after Trump wins and can appoint those 9 justices...

The number of judges on the SC was set at nine, by the Judiciary Act of 1869. It would require a functional Congress and a presidential signature to change that and even if Biden somehow won, they would have to win both houses of Congress.

But the demonstains don;t care about laws.

That's the point where they all get lined up against wall.

Would that I were on duty that day.

 

[Auld Phart]

The Republicans have let it be known that if it’s legal they’ll do it, traditions and norms be damned.

They will reap what they have sown.

The Republicans have let it be known that if it’s legal they’ll do it, traditions and norms be damned.

They have?

Yes.

How do you figure?

Which public figures said that?

Watch what they do not what they say.

That's clear as mud

 

[miketx]

The democrat party wants to pack the Supreme Court because the courts are the one place they can pass their agenda without having to get votes for it........

My question....how about another 9 Justices on the Supreme Court independent of the 1st 9, so that more cases can be reviewed and covered each year....they would be separate and not mixed in with the first 9, taking their own cases rather than making the court 18....

I don't think this would be Unconstitutional, since the composition of the court leaves it up to congress.......right?

Of course......after Trump wins and can appoint those 9 justices...

The number of judges on the SC was set at nine, by the Judiciary Act of 1869. It would require a functional Congress and a presidential signature to change that and even if Biden somehow won, they would have to win both houses of Congress.

But the demonstains don;t care about laws.

Adding justices is not illegal. How stupid are you, anyway?

Not stupid enough to fall for a shit stains deflections.

 

[Synthaholic]

The Republicans have let it be known that if it’s legal they’ll do it, traditions and norms be damned.

They will reap what they have sown.

The Republicans have let it be known that if it’s legal they’ll do it, traditions and norms be damned.

They have?

Yes.

How do you figure?

Which public figures said that?

Watch what they do not what they say.

That's clear as mud

When you learn to debate in good faith maybe I’ll explain it to you.

 

[Auld Phart]

The Republicans have let it be known that if it’s legal they’ll do it, traditions and norms be damned.

They will reap what they have sown.

The Republicans have let it be known that if it’s legal they’ll do it, traditions and norms be damned.

They have?

Yes.

How do you figure?

Which public figures said that?

Watch what they do not what they say.

That's clear as mud

When you learn to debate in good faith maybe I’ll explain it to you.

You're still playing in the mud.

Do you have anything to post but deflections?

 

[miketx]

The Republicans have let it be known that if it’s legal they’ll do it, traditions and norms be damned.

They will reap what they have sown.

The Republicans have let it be known that if it’s legal they’ll do it, traditions and norms be damned.

They have?

Yes.

How do you figure?

Which public figures said that?

Watch what they do not what they say.

That's clear as mud

When you learn to debate in good faith maybe I’ll explain it to you.

You'll still be lying.

 

[JGalt]

Already, in your first sentence, you lie.

or you’re ignorant as to what ‘court-packing’ means.

Court-packing is exactly what Republicans have been doing for decades, w/their final crescendo taking place as we type.

You as the other libs who have so far responded don't even have a clue what "packing the court" is. It isn't nominating, vetting, and appointing members of the Judicial system. That is the normal democratic means of filling Judicial vacancies, as was stipulated by our Constitution.

"Packing the court" as referenced to during this election, refers specifically to the Supreme Court. That would be through a legislative action by Congress and signed by the President, that would allow for the number of Supreme Court Justices to be increased.

I am so sick of you idiots, your idiot electorate, and your idiot media referring to "packing the court" being defined as appointing conservative judges by way of the constitutional method.

The truth is, you lost an election and we won. Therefore it is our privilege to pick and choose whomever Judges we feel are qualified for the job. And if ever your side wins, you will have the same entitlement.

 

[Blues Man]

The democrat party wants to pack the Supreme Court because the courts are the one place they can pass their agenda without having to get votes for it........

My question....how about another 9 Justices on the Supreme Court independent of the 1st 9, so that more cases can be reviewed and covered each year....they would be separate and not mixed in with the first 9, taking their own cases rather than making the court 18....

I don't think this would be Unconstitutional, since the composition of the court leaves it up to congress.......right?

Of course......after Trump wins and can appoint those 9 justices...

What you suggest is the creation of a second supreme court.

That would need a Constitutional amendment.

All that would happen if the number of justices were increased is that all the judges would sit on every case

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Already, in your first sentence, you lie.

or you’re ignorant as to what ‘court-packing’ means.

Court-packing is exactly what Republicans have been doing for decades, w/their final crescendo taking place as we type.

No they haven't. The number had been at 9 for over a ccentur. FDR, democrat, actually did try to pack the courts.

Another one who can’t read.

I know exactly what he said. I was just making a mockery of it. Oh yeah, libs have been way more successful at stuffing their partisan hacks on the SC.

 

[Synthaholic]

You as the other libs who have so far responded don't even have a clue what "packing the court" is. It isn't nominating, vetting, and appointing members of the Judicial system. That is the normal democratic means of filling Judicial vacancies, as was stipulated by our Constitution.

No, it's filibustering all of the other Party's nominees and refusing to vet and appoint members of the judicial system so that you can hold those seats open for when your Party can fill those seats.

That's a form of court-packing: gaming the system in order to pack your ideological judges into office.

Holding open a SCOTUS seat for 11 months is court-packing, to - hopefully - get your ideological Justice into that office.