Democrats Planning to Add 4 New Justices to the Supreme Court (1 Viewer)

[Sinn Fein]

I wonder how it felt when the make up of the court was originally set at 6?

Or when it went to 5?

Or when it went back to 6?

Or when it went to 7?

Or when it went to 9?

Or when it went to 10?

Or when it went back to 7?

Or when it went back to 9?

You would thing something so sacred would never ever change...surely the constitution sets the number in stone. 

 

[supermike80]

Whatever...I Just don't care anymore.  I'm tired of it.

Let the stupid dems add to the supreme court.  And when the republicans win again(which they will someday) they can expand it more.

Eventually we will have something like 30 judges sitting on the court.

Great idea!

 

[The Commish]

One side abuses power to steal the court and then expects the other side to be the bigger person and not do it back.  Good luck ever counting on that, neither of these sides will ever choose to be the bigger person.

Pretty much this.  Will be interesting to see the "it's not stealing and perfectly legit since it's not breaking any laws" guys when this nonsense started with McConnell come out with the same position here though....that'll be refreshing!!   

That said...this IS FoxNews which is part of our MSM despite what some want to believe) so take it with a grain of salt.  I think Biden's commission to look at the judicial system is legit and I'm not all that confident he'd sign this without that commission weighing in.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Where will they sit?

 

[The Commish]

Dumb Q of the day: if the SC was expanded to 13 Justices, is there a mechanism in Congress by which it could be shrunk? 
 

I’m guessing “no” but really have zero idea. 

Yes...by the same mechanism it would be expanded  

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

"A return to norms"

 

[Sinn Fein]

Whatever...I Just don't care anymore.  I'm tired of it.

Let the stupid dems add to the supreme court.  And when the republicans win again(which they will someday) they can expand it more.

Eventually we will have something like 30 judges sitting on the court.

Great idea!

Why is it a bad idea?

Both parties clearly feel the court is an ideological extension of their party. And recent evidence suggests the party in power can make that happen. 
 

are you suggesting that now that the GOP have tipped the balance it’s time for the parties to stay out of the SC?

Where was this public sentiment when the GOP sat on Garlands nomination for nearly a year, and rushed Coney Barrett through in weeks?

 

[The Commish]

You guys keep repeating this but nobody stole the court seat.  The court seat did not belong to the Democrats just because it was a Democrat that sat on a previously.

You keep repeating lies to make excuses for your sides bad behavior.

Do you think the way they handled the Garland nomination  was different than than the way they handled Coney-Barrett’s nomination? Do you think that was “bad behavior” by your side? 

It's a copycat league no matter how much people want to think the sides are different, they can't change the fact they are two "different" sides of the same coin.

 

[supermike80]

Why is it a bad idea?

Both parties clearly feel the court is an ideological extension of their party. And recent evidence suggests the party in power can make that happen. 
 

are you suggesting that now that the GOP have tipped the balance it’s time for the parties to stay out of the SC?

Where was this public sentiment when the GOP sat on Garlands nomination for nearly a year, and rushed Coney Barrett through in weeks?

Its a bad idea for the reason I stated above.  If you're cool with each party continuing to add to the SC as they win, then you don't think it is a bad idea.  Which is cool with me.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Why is it a bad idea?

Do you honestly believe it will end with just this four?

Also, why is this a good idea? It's been 9 justices for a LONG time. What problem with the court is this fixing?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Why is it a bad idea?

Both parties clearly feel the court is an ideological extension of their party. And recent evidence suggests the party in power can make that happen. 
 

are you suggesting that now that the GOP have tipped the balance it’s time for the parties to stay out of the SC?

Where was this public sentiment when the GOP sat on Garlands nomination for nearly a year, and rushed Coney Barrett through in weeks?

So it should be 5-4, in your opinion, but to hell with that we're adding 4 to make sure we have the advantage.   You're pretty much everything you've whined about for 4 years.  You didn't want normal back in the office. You wanted your side back on top to do crap like this. 

 

[Sinn Fein]

Do you honestly believe it will end with just this four?

Also, why is this a good idea? It's been 9 justices for a LONG time. What problem with the court is this fixing?

I advocated for 13 a long time ago. 
 

There are 12 judicial circuits, plus the DC circuit. Justices are assigned to handle certain functions within a given circuit so it makes sense that each Justice have a single circuit. 
 

I also want to see more geographic diversity on the court - both in terms of experience but also law school pedigree.  

 

[BladeRunner]

This post is exhibit A of why Democrats should expand the court.  Republicans rejected historical norms and stole a Supreme Court seat.  What did “moderates” like rock do?  Did they penalize Republicans for it? 

Nope.  They didn’t care, but they refused to support Biden because they feared he may add justices to the court.  

Again with the stole the supreme Court seat.  You guys are absurd.  Any more conspiracy theories you got?  It appears that you repeated the lie often enough that you now believe it.

The seat did not belong to the Democrats just because of Democrats sat on a previously.  

 

[Sinn Fein]

So it should be 5-4, in your opinion, but to hell with that we're adding 4 to make sure we have the advantage.   You're pretty much everything you've whined about for 4 years.  You didn't want normal back in the office. You wanted your side back on top to do crap like this. 

Yup. That’s exactly what I said. 

 

[BladeRunner]

Do you think the way they handled the Garland nomination  was different than than the way they handled Coney-Barrett’s nomination? Do you think that was “bad behavior” by your side? 

Maybe I misspoke. I don't want to say bad behavior. Clearly if it's constitutional then it's legal and allowed. So whether you're talking about garland, barret or expanding the court it's all legal.  

My beef is that democrat zealots keep repeating the lie that a supreme Court seat  was stolen as if it was theirs by right.  It's absurd.

 

[Sinn Fein]

The seat did not belong to the Democrats just because of Democrats sat on a previously

I don’t think anyone, other than you, is making that argument.  
 

Speaking just for myself, I don’t think the seats belong to any party, and I would prefer all Justices to be ideologically neutral/moderate and willing to look at any legal issue with an open mind - rather than a predetermined outset. 

 

[timschochet]

This post is exhibit A of why Democrats should expand the court.  Republicans rejected historical norms and stole a Supreme Court seat.  What did “moderates” like rock do?  Did they penalize Republicans for it? 

Nope.  They didn’t care, but they refused to support Biden because they feared he may add justices to the court.  

Well first off @rockaction is not a moderate. He’s a thoughtful conservative, but he is a conservative. 
It doesn’t matter how rock votes, but it does matter how the public votes. The public didn’t punish Republicans for the Garland seat because it didn’t hit their radar. But they will punish Democrats for packing the court if they try it because it will hit their radar. That’s the reality. 
You can do this (actually you can’t because Manchin and a few others will never go for it) but the trade off is losing everything else you want for several years. 

 

[timschochet]

Where will they sit?

They will play Musical Chairs before each session. Whoever loses has to leave the room. 
 

They could also play dodgeball. I would watch. 

 

[BladeRunner]

I don’t think anyone, other than you, is making that argument.  
 

Speaking just for myself, I don’t think the seats belong to any party, and I would prefer all Justices to be ideologically neutral/moderate and willing to look at any legal issue with an open mind - rather than a predetermined outset. 

Incorrect. If you read the entire thread you'll see there are several posters saying that the supreme Court seat was stolen.  

 

[sho nuff]

They will play Musical Chairs before each session. Whoever loses has to leave the room. 
 

They could also play dodgeball. I would watch. 

If you can dodge a gavel you can dodge a ball.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Incorrect. If you read the entire thread you'll see there are several posters saying that the supreme Court seat was stolen.  

Yes. But not for the reason you expressed. 

 

[Summer Wheat]

Why is it a bad idea?

Both parties clearly feel the court is an ideological extension of their party. And recent evidence suggests the party in power can make that happen. 
 

are you suggesting that now that the GOP have tipped the balance it’s time for the parties to stay out of the SC?

Where was this public sentiment when the GOP sat on Garlands nomination for nearly a year, and rushed Coney Barrett through in weeks?

It will never happen but is to the point I actually wish that everything was divided equally.  Equal amount of senate and congress with VP not allowed to decide, equal amount on supreme court.  Then let people actually work together for the good of all not just one party. Let people cross lines one way or the other for the good. Erase that line in the sand.

Having a small majority means nothing other than you can force your rules on other.  52% happy, 48% unhappy.   

In any company, on any team and in life that equals failure.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Incorrect. If you read the entire thread you'll see there are several posters saying that the supreme Court seat was stolen.  

Yes. But not for the reason you expressed. 

And, oddly enough, this was the driving force behind the GOP refusing to take up any nominees from Obama - they did not want a Democrat replacing a staunch conservative on the court. 

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

The Supreme Court rules against Kansas today in the controversial abortion case. Dissenting opinion by Justices Thompson, Brown, Jones, Miller, Rodriguez, Washington, Davis, Garcia, Smith, Johnson, Williams, Glass, MacDonald, Chang, White, Park, Ericson, Arnout, Tiller, Davidson, Pierce, Burkhart, Clark, Simmons, Rowe, Allen, Lehman, Bell, Dawkins, Van DerGend, Geiger, Jansen, Su, Baylor, Agunbiade, Belcher, Armstrong, Cunningham, Bower, Harper, Lopez, Crawford, Whitney, and Barnes.

 

[Sinn Fein]

The Supreme Court rules against Kansas today in the controversial abortion case. Dissenting opinion by Justices Thompson, Brown, Jones, Miller, Rodriguez, Washington, Davis, Garcia, Smith, Johnson, Williams, Glass, MacDonald, Chang, White, Park, Ericson, Arnout, Tiller, Davidson, Pierce, Burkhart, Clark, Simmons, Rowe, Allen, Lehman, Bell, Dawkins, Van DerGend, Geiger, Jansen, Su, Baylor, Agunbiade, Belcher, Armstrong, Cunningham, Bower, Harper, Lopez, Crawford, Whitney, and Barnes.

Kind of shocked Rodriguez and Ericson dissented on this one. Looking forward to seeing if they wrote separately. 

 

[timschochet]

Democrats need to stop worrying about this issue period. Here’s why: conservative appointments to the Supreme Court can sometimes slow down progressive change, but they don’t stop it: 

1. A conservative appointment wrote the Roe vs Wade decision. 
2. A conservative appointment declared Obamacare constitutional. 
3. A conservative appointment made same sex marriages legal. 
 

And on and on and on. It never seems to works the other way: liberal appointments don’t suddenly make conservative decisions; they stay liberal. The result is that whoever appoints the court, they move in a liberal direction. Sometimes they move slowly but the move is always there. Conservatives hate that this is true but they know that it is. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

 The public didn’t punish Republicans for the Garland seat because it didn’t hit their radar. But they will punish Democrats for packing the court if they try it because it will hit their radar. That’s the reality. 

Conventional wisdom in 2016 was that Republicans would pay a price for stonewalling Garland.  It’s only in hindsight that you can say it didn’t hit the public’s radar.  It’s entirely possible that the same is true of packing the Court.

 

[timschochet]

Conventional wisdom in 2016 was that Republicans would pay a price for stonewalling Garland.  It’s only in hindsight that you can say it didn’t hit the public’s radar.  It’s entirely possible that the same is true of packing the Court.

Possible but unlikely. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Democrats need to stop worrying about this issue period. Here’s why: conservative appointments to the Supreme Court can sometimes slow down progressive change, but they don’t stop it: 

1. A conservative appointment wrote the Roe vs Wade decision. 
2. A conservative appointment declared Obamacare constitutional. 
3. A conservative appointment made same sex marriages legal. 
 

And on and on and on. It never seems to works the other way: liberal appointments don’t suddenly make conservative decisions; they stay liberal. The result is that whoever appoints the court, they move in a liberal direction. Sometimes they move slowly but the move is always there. Conservatives hate that this is true but they know that it is. 

Both parties have been much more careful about justice ideology in the post-Souter era.  It’s not impossible, but I’d be surprised if we ever see a Republican appointee totally flip sides the way Souter and Stevens did.

 

[Mile High]

And, oddly enough, this was the driving force behind the GOP refusing to take up any nominees from Obama - they did not want a Democrat replacing a staunch conservative on the court. 

Democrats are always expected to jump over the bar Republicans run under. 

 

[dancer]

Do you honestly believe it will end with just this four?

Also, why is this a good idea? It's been 9 justices for a LONG time. What problem with the court is this fixing?

One could view the "problem" with the court as the makeup of the court being significantly different ideologically than the makeup of the country. That if the citizens of this country are roughly 50/50 conservative/liberal, the best thing for all of us would be a court that is also roughly 50/50. (And some might say our citizens are now more than 50% liberal, so to have court 67% conservative representing citizens that are less than 50% conservative is both inappropriate and illogical, and highlights a problem with our system.)

I guess there are a number of related issues:

•  Is it best for the country as a whole for the court makeup to be closer to that of the country, or not? (Assuming of course only qualified justices are appointed regardless)
  
•  If so, are there better ways to achieve this than increasing the number? Such as 
  
  Some way of identifying and/or producing judges who are completely (or almost completely) unbiased, and somehow ensure that over time these are appointed?
  
• Some way of adjusting how the court appointments are made, so that it is not based on just who happens to be in power at the moment someone dies but rather is structured in a way to achieve ideal balance?
  

 

[timschochet]

Both parties have been much more careful about justice ideology in the post-Souter era.  It’s not impossible, but I’d be surprised if we ever see a Republican appointee totally flip sides the way Souter and Stevens did.

They don’t have to totally flip. All they have to do is apply reasoned judgment the way Roberts does, and the result will still be a slow trek forward towards progressivism. 

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Where will they sit?

If the Dems get their way there will be so many that they will just stay at home and zoom

 

[The Commish]

Incorrect. If you read the entire thread you'll see there are several posters saying that the supreme Court seat was stolen.  

Just for kicks...did a search.  Below are the results....two people other than yourself mention some tense of the verb "steal" in this thread...two and one comment each.

One side abuses power to steal the court and then expects the other side to be the bigger person and not do it back.  Good luck ever counting on that, neither of these sides will ever choose to be the bigger person.

Maybe I misspoke. I don't want to say bad behavior. Clearly if it's constitutional then it's legal and allowed. So whether you're talking about garland, barret or expanding the court it's all legal.  

My beef is that democrat zealots keep repeating the lie that a supreme Court seat  was stolen as if it was theirs by right.  It's absurd.

Again with the stole the supreme Court seat.  You guys are absurd.  Any more conspiracy theories you got?  It appears that you repeated the lie often enough that you now believe it.

The seat did not belong to the Democrats just because of Democrats sat on a previously.  

This post is exhibit A of why Democrats should expand the court.  Republicans rejected historical norms and stole a Supreme Court seat.  What did “moderates” like rock do?  Did they penalize Republicans for it? 

Nope.  They didn’t care, but they refused to support Biden because they feared he may add justices to the court.  

You guys keep repeating this but nobody stole the court seat.  The court seat did not belong to the Democrats just because it was a Democrat that sat on a previously.

You keep repeating lies to make excuses for your sides bad behavior.

ETA:  And NEITHER of them offered "The seat did not belong to the Democrats just because of Democrats sat on a previously" as a reason as you are claiming.

 

[Stealthycat]

everyone voting Biden knew he and the Democrats would do this - Trump said he would during the debates, didn't ya'll listen ?

just gotta wait until another GOP is President and expand by 4 more than Democrats do I guess, play the game

and what was the only bi-partisan court in the land is now politicized - thank you Democrats 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Just for kicks...did a search.  Below are the results....two people other than yourself mention some tense of the verb "steal" in this thread...two and one comment each.

ETA:  And NEITHER of them offered "The seat did not belong to the Democrats just because of Democrats sat on a previously" as a reason as you are claiming.

   Search the entire forum.  Don't be disengenious

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I wonder how it felt when the make up of the court was originally set at 6?

Or when it went to 5?

Or when it went back to 6?

Or when it went to 7?

Or when it went to 9?

Or when it went to 10?

Or when it went back to 7?

Or when it went back to 9?

You would thing something so sacred would never ever change...surely the constitution sets the number in stone. 

The country sure has been destroyed a lot of times.

 

[The Commish]

   Search the entire forum.  Don't be disengenious

Why?  His comment was;

Incorrect. If you read the entire thread you'll see there are several posters saying that the supreme Court seat was stolen.  

That's his premise, not mine.  There's no question that many have said it was "stolen" on the forum.  But thanks for the guidance   

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Why?  His comment was;

That's his premise, not mine.  There's no question that many have said it was "stolen" on the forum.  But thanks for the guidance   

Nailed him on the technicality.  Way to go.  Now do the forum and save yourself time and admit several have claimed the seat was stolen for years. 

 

[The Commish]

Why?  His comment was;

That's his premise, not mine.  There's no question that many have said it was "stolen" on the forum.  But thanks for the guidance   

Nailed him on the technicality.  Way to go.  Now do the forum and save yourself time and admit several have claimed the seat was stolen for years. 

I like how reading people's words and responding to them is a "technicality"    

You should probably read the comments you respond to.  I did what you asked in the post you responded to  

You have a ways to go before sho can turn over the reigns it appears.  

 

[Sand]

Being that he is a main proponent of it is how you know its not a serious measure with support of Dem leadership?  More of a fringe move that isn't really going to get anywhere IMO.

Nadler introduced it, according to the news this morning.  He isn't a fringe figure.

 

[quick-hands]

Why is it a bad idea?

Both parties clearly feel the court is an ideological extension of their party. And recent evidence suggests the party in power can make that happen. 
 

are you suggesting that now that the GOP have tipped the balance it’s time for the parties to stay out of the SC?

Where was this public sentiment when the GOP sat on Garlands nomination for nearly a year, and rushed Coney Barrett through in weeks?

Lol

I thought we didnt do both sides.

Good times, good times.   

The dems have the power.   Jam it thru.   Batten the hatches.   

 

[rockaction]

Has Joe Biden taken a position on this issue? I’m not following it, haven’t read anything as I still view it as more a media dog/pony show, but I saw a headline a few days ago indicating he was setting up a committee of some sort to look into scotus policy. 
 

Biden seems to be against it, Cletius. But he never outright said that during the run-up to the election. He sidestepped and evaded the question every time.

We think (some of us that comment here) that his assignation of the matter to a committee meant it was something was going to get shoved on the back burner for a little peace and quiet for the President, but it seems the noisier, "progressive" members of Congress aren't going to let that happen.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I like how reading people's words and responding to them is a "technicality"    

You should probably read the comments you respond to.  I did what you asked in the post you responded to  

You have a ways to go before sho can turn over the reigns it appears.  

You don't have to be passive aggressive because your dumb schtick got called out.  You know I'm right.  I know I'm right.  But again, great you nailed him because "this thread".  Great work as always

 

[rockaction]

The posters in here that support this: BUT WE ALWAYS WANTED THIRTEEN. TOTES CONSTITUTIONAL

With Republicans in power: WE CAN'T CONFIRM ANY MORE JUSTICES. GOES AGAINST SPIRIT OF THE CONSTITUTION

 

[rockaction]

The switch in teams that cemented thirteen?

Is that historical enough a reference for everybody?

 

[rockaction]

Court packing. Still in with Democrats.

 

[sho nuff]

Nadler introduced it, according to the news this morning.  He isn't a fringe figure.

Sure...Nadler makes it different.  I was more adding to the laughter at Guam guy.

This still seems more fringe overall than mainstream.  We will see what the dem leadership does.

 

[sho nuff]

Court packing. Still in with Democrats.

Is it?  With how many?  Seems its pretty unpopular here.

 

[The Commish]

You don't have to be passive aggressive because your dumb schtick got called out.  You know I'm right.  I know I'm right.  But again, great you nailed him because "this thread".  Great work as always

Yes...it's "shtick" to read and respond to the words of another poster...love it....beginning to see the pattern/problem here  

Thanks for calling me out and setting me straight Super Sarg!!!!!!!