What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

******Official SCOTUS Thread****** (3 Viewers)

Jobber said:
How difficult is it to bump the SCOTUS to 11 if one party holds congress and the presidency?
Click to expand...
FDR tried it in the 30s in a reaction to the SCOTUS shooting down some of his New Deal programs.  He had just won big in his re-election, but his court-packing scheme failed in large part because even democratic legislators weren't comfortable with it.

edit - I think FDR's legislation would have allowed more than just 11.  It would have been crazy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner said:
Meh.  While I don't excuse bad behavior and hypocrisy, if you don't think the Democrats would do the same then I don't know what to say.

Bof Sides are hypocrites when it comes down to being able to advance your agenda.
Click to expand...
Oh I know they would.   But if the side that I don't support is actually doing it rather than theoretically, I'm going to ridicule them for it.  If the dems did the same thing, I would just keep my mouth shut.  I certainly wouldn't attempt to justify it by using the defense that the other side would do the same thing.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe we should be rethinking this whole lifetime appointment thingy. With staggered 18 year terms, voters would still have a Supreme Court-based reason to make their presidential and senate voting decisions. The way we do it now doesn't seem appropriate for a big league nation.

Watching RBG's health feels more than a little like the nutjobs who stake out the local airports whenever an SEC coaching position opens up. 

 
roadkill1292 said:
Maybe we should be rethinking this whole lifetime appointment thingy. With staggered 18 year terms, voters would still have a Supreme Court-based reason to make their presidential and senate voting decisions. The way we do it now doesn't seem appropriate for a big league nation.

Watching RBG's health feels more than a little like the nutjobs who stake out the local airports whenever an SEC coaching position opens up. 
Click to expand...
I'd be on board with saying SC Justices have to retire at 75 or 80.

The SCOTUS Death Pool is creepy.

 
BladeRunner said:
roadkill1292 said:
Maybe we should be rethinking this whole lifetime appointment thingy. With staggered 18 year terms, voters would still have a Supreme Court-based reason to make their presidential and senate voting decisions. The way we do it now doesn't seem appropriate for a big league nation.

Watching RBG's health feels more than a little like the nutjobs who stake out the local airports whenever an SEC coaching position opens up. 
Click to expand...
I'd be on board with saying SC Justices have to retire at 75 or 80.

The SCOTUS Death Pool is creepy.
Click to expand...
Yeah I’m not down with any lifetime appointments.  I fully understand the needs for the supreme court justices to not be worried about reelection and thus pander to it but the age thing is a problem that needs to be addressed.  

 
dkp993 said:
Yeah I’m not down with any lifetime appointments.  I fully understand the needs for the supreme court justices to not be worried about reelection and thus pander to it but the age thing is a problem that needs to be addressed.  
Click to expand...
Of course the SC should be an appointed position. And you're also right in that it can use regular infusions of new blood. Clarence Thomas was nominated four (going on five) presidents ago.

 
roadkill1292 said:
Maybe we should be rethinking this whole lifetime appointment thingy. With staggered 18 year terms, voters would still have a Supreme Court-based reason to make their presidential and senate voting decisions. The way we do it now doesn't seem appropriate for a big league nation.

Watching RBG's health feels more than a little like the nutjobs who stake out the local airports whenever an SEC coaching position opens up. 
Click to expand...
I strongly agree with this suggestion.  This is morbid and not befitting a healthy society.

 
roadkill1292 said:
Maybe we should be rethinking this whole lifetime appointment thingy. With staggered 18 year terms, voters would still have a Supreme Court-based reason to make their presidential and senate voting decisions. The way we do it now doesn't seem appropriate for a big league nation.

Watching RBG's health feels more than a little like the nutjobs who stake out the local airports whenever an SEC coaching position opens up. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, I really think something like this is needed. I also think, at the margin, a move to slightly more justices wouldn't hurt.

 
Hurts Trumps re-election chances irregardless..... particularly if McConnell and Trump push to confirm a new SCJ.    It obviously helps the Republican agenda for the next 20 years.

ETA:  Elections have consequences.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The smart play - politically - for the GOP is to publicly announce they will not seek to fill the seat prior to the election.

If the GOP does move to fill the seat - it energizes/enrages liberal voters, and the Dems will take both the White House and Senate - and then the Dems will increase the number of justices on the SC.  Guaranteed.

Now - I am not sure that the GOP would not try to fill the seat post-Election - but there is not much time - and it would still generate outrage if Biden is elected and Trump fills the seat post-election.

 
I think the narrative of more SCJs on the court is one that Democrats absolutely don't want to put out there now.  

ETA: Nor is it one they should actually implement. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
caustic said:
A reporter from Alaska Public Media says “until after inauguration day.” https://twitter.com/lruskin/status/1307102957947715584?s=21
Click to expand...
The next tweet says Murkowski said that before RBG even died, it was just a hypothetical.  So that adds some uncertainty.

I wonder if Susan Collins would say something similar to help her election campaign.  And if she did, would she stick with it even if she lost the election?

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Totally disagree.  Trump's been bleeding evangelical support, this'll bring them all back to the fold.
Click to expand...
I disagree on the ‘no matter what’. If they confirm an ultra conservative judge some may be less motivated to vote Trump. If they leave that ‘immediate new Supreme Court Justice hanging out in the election, it could very will be the reason why Trump gets another 4 years. Mitch is a lot of things but he knows the political game. My guess is that if he thinks Trump has any chance of winning, he’ll turn the seat into a campaign issue.

 
Thunderlips said:
I think the narrative of more SCJs on the court is one that Democrats absolutely don't want to put out there now.  

ETA: Nor is it one they should actually implement. 
Click to expand...
No - its not an argument they will put out in an election.

I disagree on the idea of implementation.

I think there should be 13 Justices - one to represent each circuit, and a Chief Justice.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
How The Activist MSM Is Burying Alleged SCOTUS Kavanaugh Assassination Attempt (5/12/22 6:22 PST)
Replies
47
Views
2K
Boston
Boston
Max Power
Eric Swalwell tweets thread
2 3
Replies
132
Views
4K
Max Power
Max Power
(HULK)
Non-Partisan Funny Things in Politics
Replies
4
Views
619
dgreen
dgreen

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top