Debate Now The case for expanding the Supreme Court

[Rumpole]

Again trying to give more populated areas undue power over less populated areas. There's no good reason let LA dictate policy for rural Alabama.

The ONLY office that's not true for is the president.

Areas are dirt. Dirt doesn't vote. People vote. A person in a city is no better or worse than a person on a farm.

One person, one vote, doesn't get fairer than that.

Even Alexander Hamilton agrees in Federalist #22:

The right of equal suffrage among the States is another exceptionable part of the Confederation. Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Delaware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. Sophistry may reply, that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the States will be a majority of confederated America. But this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common-sense.

What is he saying? He is saying that YOU lack 'common sense' with your 'legerdemain'
(your slight-of-hand reasoning insofar as the idea of 'equal suffrage' of the states) and that it is 'sophistry'.

 

[hadit]

Areas are dirt. Dirt doesn't vote. People vote. A person in a city is no better or worse than a person on a farm.

One person, one vote, doesn't get fairer than that.

Even Alexander Hamilton agrees in Federalist #22:

The right of equal suffrage among the States is another exceptionable part of the Confederation. Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Delaware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. Sophistry may reply, that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the States will be a majority of confederated America. But this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common-sense.

What is he saying? He is saying that YOU lack 'common sense' with your 'legerdemain'
(your slight-of-hand reasoning insofar as the idea of 'equal suffrage' of the states) and that it is 'sophistry'.

Hamilton was but one of the FF's. Obviously, his view was in the minority when it came to electing the president.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Half the states before 1822 didnt even let their citizens vote for President.

 

[Rumpole]

Hamilton was but one of the FF's. Obviously, his view was in the minority when it came to electing the president.

But Federalist #22 is compelling, far more compelling than your argument.

Moreover, the EC was never intended for a minority vote to elect the president. they assumed it would coincide with the popular vote. Now that it has happened twice in two decades, I doubt they would have let it remain as it is. In those days, it took a century for it to occur three times and that didn't happen until the next century after it was conceived.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

But Federalist #22 is compelling, far more compelling than your argument.

Moreover, the EC was never intended for a minority vote to elect the president. they assumed it would coincide with the popular vote. Now that it has happened twice in two decades, I doubt they would have let it remain as it is. In those days, it took a century for it to occur three times and that didn't happen until the next century after it was conceived.

No they did not there was NO requirement to even let the people vote for president and half the states did not their legislature pick the electors until 1822

 

[RetiredGySgt]

State legislatures[edit]​

Constitutionally, the legislature of each state determines how its electors are chosen; Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 states that each state shall appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature Thereof May Direct".[13] During the first presidential election in 1789, only 6 of the 13 original states chose electors by any form of popular vote.[note 2]

Gradually throughout the years, the states began conducting popular elections to choose their slate of electors. In 1800, only five of the 16 states chose electors by a popular vote; by 1824, after the rise of Jacksonian democracy, the proportion of states that chose electors by popular vote had sharply risen to 18 out of 24 states.[14] This gradual movement toward greater democratization coincided with a gradual decrease in property restrictions for the franchise.[14] By 1840, only one of the 26 states (South Carolina) still selected electors by the state legislature.[15]

United States presidential election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Kilroy2]

I think that one solution my be to have 10 judges on the supreme court with a requirement that 5 be nominated by the democrats and the other 5 by the republicans. Yes they may have a deadlock. Then the lower court decision should stand.

What Happens When an Eight-Justice Supreme Court Splits 4-4?

Eight-member court is ‘not that rare’, experts say

www.theguardian.com

The Obama issue as stated has been the greatest example of using politics to select judges on the court. The republicans did argue that Obama should not select a judge because he was leaving office. Then they changed their tune when Trump was leaving office and allowed him to select a judge. This is a prime example of political bias that has shaped the court into being a political bias entity.

The supreme court has been swayed by political ideology . IF politics was not an issue then shouldn't a judgment be unanimous. Instead they rely on interpreting a law. This by its nature invites bias.

The second issue is influence. Some of the judges have taken trips that have been paid for by special interest groups. If congress and president cannot have special interest groups pay for a trip or vacation then why is it that supreme court judges can do it. Yeah one can say that they do not make policy. Yet the can stride down a policy.

Supreme Court justices continue to rack up trips on private interest dime

Supreme Court justices disclosed taking a combined 64 trips in 2018 in which things like transportation, food and lodging were reimbursed by others.

www.opensecrets.org

The gun lobbyist have worked that angle to perfection in an attempt to influence the court.

How many times has the court had an unanimous decision?

Results indicate that only 18 of the Warren Court's 647 decisions and 6 of the Burger Court's 860 decisions meet the criteria for consensus

Consensus in the Unanimous Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products LLC
ARGUED: 3/22/2023
This case involves the design and branding of a line of humorous dog chew toys that resemble familiar trademarks. The Court is considering if the trademark holder is protected by the Lanham Act or if the toys’ producer instead receives heightened First Amendment protection due to the humorous nature of the dog toys, among other factors.
DECISION ON 6/8/2023: In a unanimous opinion, the Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s expansive view of the noncommercial use exclusion that a parody is always exempt from fair-use limits established by Congress.

This was a unanimous decision and it is possible to achieve.

So I am for increasing the court to an even number that reflect the two major political parties ideologies which is either conservative or liberal.

They must reach a unanimous decisions or the prior lower court judge's decision stands.

This can lessen the effect of political interest or bias on judicial decisions by neutralizing it in the Supreme Court.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I think that one solution my be to have 10 judges on the supreme court with a requirement that 5 be nominated by the democrats and the other 5 by the republicans. Yes they may have a deadlock. Then the lower court decision should stand.

What Happens When an Eight-Justice Supreme Court Splits 4-4?

Eight-member court is ‘not that rare’, experts say

www.theguardian.com

The Obama issue as stated has been the greatest example of using politics to select judges on the court. The republicans did argue that Obama should not select a judge because he was leaving office. Then they changed their tune when Trump was leaving office and allowed him to select a judge. This is a prime example of political bias that has shaped the court into being a political bias entity.

The supreme court has been swayed by political ideology . IF politics was not an issue then shouldn't a judgment be unanimous. Instead they rely on interpreting a law. This by its nature invites bias.

The second issue is influence. Some of the judges have taken trips that have been paid for by special interest groups. If congress and president cannot have special interest groups pay for a trip or vacation then why is it that supreme court judges can do it. Yeah one can say that they do not make policy. Yet the can stride down a policy.

Supreme Court justices continue to rack up trips on private interest dime

Supreme Court justices disclosed taking a combined 64 trips in 2018 in which things like transportation, food and lodging were reimbursed by others.

www.opensecrets.org

The gun lobbyist have worked that angle to perfection in an attempt to influence the court.

How many times has the court had an unanimous decision?

Results indicate that only 18 of the Warren Court's 647 decisions and 6 of the Burger Court's 860 decisions meet the criteria for consensus

Consensus in the Unanimous Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products LLC
ARGUED: 3/22/2023
This case involves the design and branding of a line of humorous dog chew toys that resemble familiar trademarks. The Court is considering if the trademark holder is protected by the Lanham Act or if the toys’ producer instead receives heightened First Amendment protection due to the humorous nature of the dog toys, among other factors.
DECISION ON 6/8/2023: In a unanimous opinion, the Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s expansive view of the noncommercial use exclusion that a parody is always exempt from fair-use limits established by Congress.

This was a unanimous decision and it is possible to achieve.

So I am for increasing the court to an even number that reflect the two major political parties ideologies which is either conservative or liberal.

They must reach a unanimous decisions or the prior lower court judge's decision stands.

This can lessen the effect of political interest or bias on judicial decisions by neutralizing it in the Supreme Court.

stupid idea nothing is unanimous very often expecting a court to be neuters that court and makes it useless. as for 5 and 5 another political decision by a butt hurt democrat. Can't win so change the rules. the argument wasn't that the Obama was leaving office so much as it was why should a republican senate allow a democrat that was leaving chose a replacement.

 

[hadit]

But Federalist #22 is compelling, far more compelling than your argument.

Moreover, the EC was never intended for a minority vote to elect the president. they assumed it would coincide with the popular vote. Now that it has happened twice in two decades, I doubt they would have let it remain as it is. In those days, it took a century for it to occur three times and that didn't happen until the next century after it was conceived.

They put it in place to function as it did. The states were to elect the president, and it is the ONLY office that is elected that way. They never intended for the president to be elected by the popular vote.

 

[Kilroy2]

stupid idea nothing is unanimous very often expecting a court to be neuters that court and makes it useless. as for 5 and 5 another political decision by a butt hurt democrat. Can't win so change the rules. the argument wasn't that the Obama was leaving office so much as it was why should a republican senate allow a democrat that was leaving chose a replacement.

Based on your reply you do make a point about yourself. You fear balance. Your last statement confirms that. You do not want a balanced court, you just want a pro conservative court.

Obama was the president at the time and constitutionally he had the right to select a supreme court appointee. That is a fact.

Yet Republicans were crying foul, when Democrats tried to block Trump from doing the same thing. Republicans were up in arms. You justify republicans for doing something and cry foul when democrats do the same thing.

Thanks for making my point that balance is needed.

If justice is blind then it must be fair. A balanced court is fair. Obviously you do not want fairness.

An evenly balanced court is the best way to ensure that justice stays blind and not politically motivated justice.

Unanimous decisions says that all the Judges reviewed the law , the circumstances of the case, and came to the same conclusion. How hard can it be. If all judges are fair and impartial then there should be an unanimous decision a majority of the time. Supreme Court judges are appointed for life. They have to live up to a higher standard. .

If justice is blind and fair then that is the most obvious choice. IF they differ then someone is wrong and someone is right. Flip a coin or go with the majority.

justice is unbiased and should not be based on outside influences such as political bias or political beliefs.
In order to neutralize bias then it must be balanced with the same number of both pros and cons . IF they can't agree then let the lower court decision stand.

Justice should be perfect but unfortunately there is the human equation of bias.

The supreme court is nothing more than a way to overturn a previous court decision. IF they overturn it then the previous court made an error or that the Supreme court vote count mattered. Thus courts can make errors and that would include the Supreme Court.

It is rare that a supreme court overturns a prior supreme court decision. But it has happen. A couple have been quite significant such a decisions on child labor, saluting the flag, school segregation, fair trial, homosexuality and same sex marriages , money in politics, and of course Roe VS Wade

Thus the court changed a previous courts decision. Politics, bias , personal bias, and public sentiment may influence court decisions.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Based on your reply you do make a point about yourself. You fear balance. Your last statement confirms that. You do not want a balanced court, you just want a pro conservative court.

Obama was the president at the time and constitutionally he had the right to select a supreme court appointee. That is a fact.

Yet Republicans were crying foul, when Democrats tried to block Trump from doing the same thing. Republicans were up in arms. You justify republicans for doing something and cry foul when democrats do the same thing.

Thanks for making my point that balance is needed.

If justice is blind then it must be fair. A balanced court is fair. Obviously you do not want fairness.

An evenly balanced court is the best way to ensure that justice stays blind and not politically motivated justice.

Unanimous decisions says that all the Judges reviewed the law , the circumstances of the case, and came to the same conclusion. How hard can it be. If all judges are fair and impartial then there should be an unanimous decision a majority of the time. Supreme Court judges are appointed for life. They have to live up to a higher standard. .

If justice is blind and fair then that is the most obvious choice. IF they differ then someone is wrong and someone is right. Flip a coin or go with the majority.

justice is unbiased and should not be based on outside influences such as political bias or political beliefs.
In order to neutralize bias then it must be balanced with the same number of both pros and cons . IF they can't agree then let the lower court decision stand.

Justice should be perfect but unfortunately there is the human equation of bias.

The supreme court is nothing more than a way to overturn a previous court decision. IF they overturn it then the previous court made an error or that the Supreme court vote count mattered. Thus courts can make errors and that would include the Supreme Court.

It is rare that a supreme court overturns a prior supreme court decision. But it has happen. A couple have been quite significant such a decisions on child labor, saluting the flag, school segregation, fair trial, homosexuality and same sex marriages , money in politics, and of course Roe VS Wade

Thus the court changed a previous courts decision. Politics, bias , personal bias, and public sentiment may influence court decisions.

LOL the facts are that the Senate decides who will or will not be on the Court and Obama said that elections have consequences so you can take your whining and butt hurt away and pound sand for all I care. remind me how you were complaining ally the years that the liberals held the Court and made 5 4 decisions. Ya that's right you didn't whine about that at all and all you want is a liberal bias because you are a liberal.

 

[Kilroy2]

LOL the facts are that the Senate decides who will or will not be on the Court and Obama said that elections have consequences so you can take your whining and butt hurt away and pound sand for all I care. remind me how you were complaining ally the years that the liberals held the Court and made 5 4 decisions. Ya that's right you didn't whine about that at all and all you want is a liberal bias because you are a liberal.

President nominates and appoints. Senate votes on whether to confirm or reject the nomination. Try to be specific if you can.

Well the OP just placed this thread so now comments can be made. Try to remember what year this is.

Rules:
1. No, flaming, name calling, disingenuous, snarky retorts, ad hominem attacks, no 'kill the source/messenger' replies (critique only the text).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

President nominates and appoints. Senate votes on whether to confirm or reject the nomination. Try to be specific if you can.

Well the OP just placed this thread so now comments can be made. Try to remember what year this is.

Rules:
1. No, flaming, name calling, disingenuous, snarky retorts, ad hominem attacks, no 'kill the source/messenger' replies (critique only the text).

thats right the SENATE DECIDES who to vote on or even whether to vote at ALL. Elections have consequences remember? Obama said that when ever republicans had a problem with his rules'

 

[Rumpole]

They put it in place to function as it did. The states were to elect the president, and it is the ONLY office that is elected that way. They never intended for the president to be elected by the popular vote.

That's not quite right, they didn't want a minority to elect a president either, they didn't want the popular vote and the EC to not agree. The fact that it occurred only three times in the 19th century proves that the design was to have them both agree. The EC wasn't put there as an anti-popular vote mechanism, it was a means to give smaller states a bigger voice. But, never in their wildest dreams did they foresee a state like CA with 39 million people.

 

[Rumpole]

thats right the SENATE DECIDES who to vote on or even whether to vote at ALL. Elections have consequences remember? Obama said that when ever republicans had a problem with his rules'

I sincerely doubt that the spirit of 'advise and consent' clause ever meant to not give a nominee even a hearing without just cause, as they Senate did with Garland.

 

[Rumpole]

No they did not there was NO requirement to even let the people vote for president and half the states did not their legislature pick the electors until 1822

I say we should restore democracy, one person one vote.

There is nothing more fairer than that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's not quite right, they didn't want a minority to elect a president either, they didn't want the popular vote and the EC to not agree. The fact that it occurred only three times in the 19th century proves that the design was to have them both agree. The EC wasn't put there as an anti-popular vote mechanism, it was a means to give smaller states a bigger voice. But, never in their wildest dreams did they foresee a state like CA with 39 million people.

Again for the slow and stupid at first states didnt even ALLOW a vote half the states until 1824 did not even vote for President the state legislature picked the electors.

 

[hadit]

That's not quite right, they didn't want a minority to elect a president either, they didn't want the popular vote and the EC to not agree. The fact that it occurred only three times in the 19th century proves that the design was to have them both agree. The EC wasn't put there as an anti-popular vote mechanism, it was a means to give smaller states a bigger voice. But, never in their wildest dreams did they foresee a state like CA with 39 million people.

What good is a bigger voice when it has to agree with the majority? Answer, not much. The bottom line, though, is that the states elect the president, not the people.

 

[ActionJackson]

The best case for packing the Court with leftist judges is to make sure the Supreme Court rules in favor of leftist causes. So if 9 justices rule in favor of conservative causes, then the leftists should add 3 leftist judges. If (down the road) those twelve rule in favor of conservative causes, then the leftists should add three more leftist judges. If the court ends up with 99 justices and 50 of them rule in favor of conservative causes, then three more leftist judges should be added to "even the playing field." Ad infinitum!!

 

[hadit]

The best case for packing the Court with leftist judges is to make sure the Supreme Court rules in favor of leftist causes. So if 9 justices rule in favor of conservative causes, then the leftists should add 3 leftist judges. If (down the road) those twelve rule in favor of conservative causes, then the leftists should add three more leftist judges. If the court ends up with 99 justices and 50 of them rule in favor of conservative causes, then three more leftist judges should be added to "even the playing field." Ad infinitum!!

This whole thing reminds me of 5-year-olds playing games in the sandbox, "What do you mean, I lose? Okay, then I get 3 points at the start of the game. What? I lost again? Okay, I get 6 points at the start of the game". The next thing you know, they'll be demanding an automatic 10 EC votes in every presidential election. You know, to make sure they win every time.