Debate Now The case for expanding the Supreme Court

[Unkotare]

Lefties crying about the very-much-needed Electoral College.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Each year millions more voters are added from the younger ranks, who tend to vote democratic, as the elderly die off, who tend to vote republican, so it's not a stretch to declare that we will be a strong liberal country by 2050 as white become the minority.

As people people get older they tend to become more conservative.

Young people have always been stupid.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Which is why I support doing away with unearned electors. We should eliminate winner take al.

The start? at the start they were slave overs, so I'm not buying this idea we are obligated to cling to 'original intent'.

ANd the original design was only to give smaller states a larger voice, NOT to allow 'minority rule'. See Federalist #22 by Alexander Hamilton

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 Deleware 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 was Hamilton arguing about in that sentence?

What is the 'sense of the majority'? it is the WILL of the majority, "the will of the people".

More accurately, the context of that quote, Hamilton was actually arguing that the principle of equal suffrage between states of different sizes (of populations) contradicts the principle that it is a maxim of a republican form of government that the majority should prevail. Because he was arguing in favor of that principle, the principle, as a principle, it therefore stands alone --not to mention that he states that contrary arguments are 'sophistry'. Clearly, Hamilton favors that the majority should prevail in elections.

yes, they had issues with 'factions' and they feared democracy, so they moderated it with a bicameral legislature and 3 co-equal branches of government one being a check on the other, but they never, at any time, never ever favored 'tyranny of the minority' which is about what we have now with the 6/3 court in favor of conservatives, totally out of sync with the will of the people.

Fear 'mobs'? I got bad news for you, if 81,000,000 people voting for Biden is a mob, then 74,000,000 who voted for Trump is ALSO a mob. This idea one is and the other isn't is absurdity on it's face. Yeah, all we have now are mobs, and in a nation of mobs, the only way to go IS democracy, because the alternative is tyranny, and try selling that idea.

And large states are not going to have their lives run by smaller states. One logic is as good as the other.

No, electors elect the president
electors are elected by people.
Therefore, people, not states, elect the president.

Therefore, there is no fairer system than one person one vote.

There is no idea more significant than an idea whose time has come, and that idea is.......

Democracy.

In 1827, the got rid of appointed electors in favor of electing them by the people.

In 1920, the women's suffrage became the law of the land.

Slowly, but surely, we are headed for MORE democracy, not less, and one person one vote is MORE democracy, not less. The status quo can't go on forever, the nation is evolving, embracing democracy, more and more each year.

I know Republicans hate democracy, which, of course, they do given that they are incessantly trying to make the utterly bogus claim that America is not a democracy, as if a 'Constitutional Republic' is not a democracy, which is a lie, no wonder they don't like democracy, they haven't won the popular vote in decades.

Well, I can't help that, so what y'all need to do is find a better message that sells

Hamilton could argue it all he wanted.....He's nothing to me anyway.

But smaller states were not going to join a Union where Virigina and New York essentially ran the show. Hence the emphasis on some state consideration (in the form of the senate, the electoral college, and other factors).

By popular vote, you mean in the presidential election. If it were a popular vote, it might be different. As many statisicians have pointed out.

All your blathering about Republicans hating democracy is simply that....blather.

America is a collection of states united for protection and other well-defined purposes. That you want to use that to homogonize the country isn't going to go unchallenged.

I hate to break it to you, but not everyone thinks the left is as smart as it thinks it is. And the fact that they have now lost their foothold on using the courts to preserve....or conserve (funny how that works.....) what they want, they are browning their underwear in droves. Just look at the internet.

You may think we are headed in a direction of YOUR democracy (something I see as tyranny), but it ain't happening anytime soon and this week, it headed in the opposite direction.

I don't like it, but it appears there is a chance Trump heads back to the White House.

If it were not for COVID, there would be no president Biden.

Trump picked up more minorities and that trend isn't dying.



So, in the end, you can put your crystal ball back in the place you pulled it from (don't hurt yourself).

 

[beautress]

Rules:
1. No, flaming, name calling, disingenuous, snarky retorts, ad hominem attacks, no 'kill the source/messenger' replies (critique only the text).
2. If you make a claim of fact, offer a thoughtful path of reasoning/logic, AND, if possible, links to authoritative sources that supplement (they don't have to actually prove, but proof is always preferred) your position. If you can't do this, then preface it with 'imo' (in my opinion).
3. Absolutely NO thought-terminating clichés (example; 'fake news', is the main one, but there are others).

So, the source article for this discussion is:

To Save Democracy, We Must Expand the Court​

To Save Democracy, We Must Expand the Court

Read the latest by Christopher Kang.

www.democracydocket.com

Summary:
So, the key takeaway from the text is a concern over the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court impacting American democracy over the past decade. Some significant actions by the Court include approving voter suppression, allowing unlimited campaign spending, and sanctioning partisan gerrymandering. Essentially, the worry is that even when Democrats win elections, their policymaking ability is being hindered by the conservative Court.

The text mentions that the current Court's conservative composition is itself a product of some anti-democratic strategies. Many of the conservative justices were appointed by Republican presidents who initially took office without winning the popular vote. Moreover, the Senate, when under Republican control, blocked a nomination from President Obama.

It's feared that this could result in a cycle where the conservative Supreme Court continues to make it easier for Republicans to maintain power even with diminishing levels of support, while the Republicans, in turn, protect their Supreme Court majority.

The proposed solution? Expanding the Supreme Court, which is a move Congress has the power to make according to the U.S. Constitution. If President Biden were allowed to nominate four more justices, it could balance the Court and potentially ensure that it respects democracy and the rule of law. Expanding the Court could also increase its diversity and functionality.

There is growing support for this idea among Congress and the progressive movement, with a bill - the Judiciary Act of 2021 - gaining more than 60 co-sponsors. Public polls indicate more Americans support the expansion than oppose it, (though I did find polls that concluded the opposite, but I think when the case is presented as it could be, more people would support the idea).

Still, some are hesitant, worrying about possible repercussions, like Republicans expanding the Court further when they are in power. Others suggest term limits as a preferred reform measure. However, the authors argue that term limits could be challenged as unconstitutional, and they see the immediate solution to be expansion.

In a nutshell, they are arguing that the only way to protect American democracy from what they see as anti-democracy forces on the Supreme Court is through expansion, and they're calling for urgent support to pass the Judiciary Act.

Not mentioned in the article, but my idea:

We got 9 justices at a stage in American history when the population was much smaller. Now the case load for the SC is much greater owing to a much bigger population, and this has resulted in an ever increasing 'shadow docket' which, imo, is not a good thing (google it or click on the link). We could create a two tiered court (9 plus 9) to handle the increased case load, and the Chief justice, on the big issues, would let both tiers rule on it, so it would only be for a much smaller number of cases, the really salient cases, that both tiers would rule on. Also, we need a way to allow both parties to equally nominate justices, and not let just one side appoint them. Also, 'advise and consent' should equal a hearing, at the minimum. What McConnel did against Garland, in my opinion, was not in the spirit of the constitution's meaning insofar a the senate shall 'advise and consent'. We need legislation to further articulate what that means.

Also, Republicans like to accuse dems of 'stacking the court'. My view is that Republicans, with a 6/3 conservative court, have, indeed, 'stacked' the court 6/3 in favor of conservatives. My view is that expanding it, not letting one side dominate the nominations, would serve to UNSTACK the court, and 'balance' it out. (This is semantics, of course, as to what 'stacking the court' means).

Let's discuss.

cheers.
Rumpole

I vote no. Nine is a perfect number and yields a simple majority. I see extremists on the left jumping up and down to facilitate a stranglehold on the three branches of government--Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, and Judicial Branch. Right now, the Federal Judiciary has come under fire for placating the Democrat Party and leaving behind Americans in the Republican Party. Equality is preferred because their oath of office requires Justices to be the soul of the Constitution, not the destroyer of it. Guess who wants to get rid of freedom of speech in America. Hint: it is not the tried and true Republican Party who ushered in equal rights for blacks by ending slavery all together, equal education a century later, and currently, we're living together more like Dr. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech.

​

 

[dblack]

There is no case for expanding the Supreme Court that doesn't condense to: "My side is losing!!!!!"

 

[HikerGuy83]

So, the key takeaway from the text is a concern over the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court impacting American democracy over the past decade.

Only if you don't like what they are doing.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Some significant actions by the Court include approving voter suppression, allowing unlimited campaign spending, and sanctioning partisan gerrymandering.

Making my point.

Voter suppression has been proven how ?

I don't like unlimited spending, but we feed off of it. Who is the author to call it bad ?

Gerrymandering has been allowed by all courts and has gone one for over 150 years.

 

[ActionJackson]

It would be silly to "expand" the size of the Supreme Court each and every time it didn't reach conclusions or make decisions that mimicked our own. If both sides of the political aisle routinely expanded the size of the Court to reflect various political leanings, then we could potentially see 100 Justices or more in a few, short decades.

It's also silly to indicate that a Court that upholds America's written Constitution is “right leaning” when (in all actuality) it is simply doing the job as the Supreme Court was and is intended to do. That is to protect the meaning of the Constitution as well as the vision and intent of the men who originally penned it.

The Constitution isn't a play toy to be bent, twisted, or altered to suit the whims of a few malcontents. Contrarily, the malcontents are required to conform to the hard and fast rules of the Constitution or seek residence in a nation more in line with their whims and/or fanciful notions.

 

[Kilroy2]

You just need to expand the court to one more judge. You just need to limit the number of republican leaning and democrat leaning to a set number of 5 each.

Thus if the judges pander to left or right ideology it will be deadlock and goes back to the decision of the prior court.

They say justice is blind but it is lip service. The perfect world requires opinions would be unanimous all the time. Under the current court they have the highest percentage of unanimous decisions but at a cost. Judges in the minority that disagree with the majority are silenced. The decision really goes to the majority

If it was blind then they would all agree all the time but they don't. They pick and choice elements and run with it. They interpret thru a filter.

The court operates on the majority rule. Justice should be unanimous the the top level. There is no appeal beyond the supreme court. Maybe if the case is brought before the court years later then ruling may change when different judges sit on the bench. Indicating some one did get it wrong.

The original court had 6 justices. Years later it was reduced to 5. Then years later it went back up to 6

The number continues to rise as both sides try to influence the court by gaining a majority

 

[HikerGuy83]

You just need to expand the court to one more judge. You just need to limit the number of republican leaning and democrat leaning to a set number of 5 each.

Fail. There should be no leaning.

Judges don't "lean" (or they shouldn't).

They reason and respond.

Hope you figure that out some day.

 

[Kilroy2]

Fail. There should be no leaning.

Judges don't "lean" (or they shouldn't).

They reason and respond.

Hope you figure that out some day.

IF we lived in a fairy tail world then you would be correct

Yet why do presidents who select justices generally choose ones that are either conservative or liberal (Republican or Democrat)

Judges are suppose to be impartial but explain why their are conservative judges or liberal judges

Sure anyone of them can claim to be impartial

Judges make ruling that are overturned by higher courts

Previous ruling made years ago are overturned


Reason is influenced by many things including religions, how they interpret the constitution and laws

The argument between original intent or interpreting the constitution

The bottom line political persuasion is providing what the hive wants.

Republicans denied Obama his right to select a supreme court judge why because they wanted the next president to select a conservative judge

Wake up the court has conservative leaning judges and liberal judges

Free speech for conservatives is only speech that they agree with that is why they are conservatives

 

[E. Pluribus]

A majority vote is still a majority vote if it's 9 judges or 29 judges. We don't need anymore.

 

[Unkotare]

... presidents who select justices...

Presidents don't "select" justices, they nominate.

 

[Kilroy2]

Presidents don't "select" justices, they nominate.

if your going to be technical about and what is the official term then your right but in reality there is no difference

Biden selected him to be the nominee

 

[Rumpole]

Presidents don't "select" justices, they nominate.

and nitpickers on internet debate forums are a fact of life.

There is no cure.

 

[Oddball]

and nitpickers on internet debate forums are a fact of life.

There is no cure.

Bork and Meyers were "selected".....How'd their years of service on the USSC work out?....Oh wait.....


Indeed, there is in fact no cure.

 

[Cellblock2429]

and nitpickers on internet debate forums are a fact of life.

There is no cure.

/——/ Rumpholes vocabulary is third grade level. He mostly cuts and pastes what he thinks is eloquent.

 

[Rumpole]

A majority vote is still a majority vote if it's 9 judges or 29 judges. We don't need anymore.

With a small court, it puts too much power in the one or two swing votes. With a bigger number, it gives more incentive for consensus building, and it would be structured so that the dominant side should be plus one justice, and never 6/3, that's just wrong.

 

[Cellblock2429]

With a small court, it puts too much power in the one or two swing votes. With a bigger number, it gives more incentive for consensus building, and it would be structured so that the dominant side should be plus one justice, and never 6/3, that's just wrong.

/—-/ Whatever it takes for democRATs to win.

 

[Rumpole]

/—-/ Whatever it takes for democRATs to win.

That's not an argument.