Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Democrats Planning to Add 4 New Justices to the Supreme Court


Recommended Posts

Being reported on Fox.  This is not going to end well...  HOUSE AND SENATE DEMOCRATS PLAN BILL TO ADD FOUR JUSTICES TO SUPREME COURT

Quote

 

CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS PLAN to unveil legislation expanding the size of the Supreme Court on Thursday, according to three congressional sources familiar with the closely held measure. 

The bill would add four seats to the high court, bringing the total to 13, from the current 9. The number of justices on the Court has fluctuated widely throughout the course of the nation’s history. Republicans currently hold 6 seats, while Democrats hold just 3 after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and the quick confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. 

The bill is led by House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, Subcommittee chair Hank Johnson, and freshman Rep. Mondaire Jones. 

In the Senate, the bill is being championed by Ed Markey of Massachusetts.

This story is developing…

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 242
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The chance of this happening is close to zero.  It's just grandstanding.   Why are people pretending like this is news?

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 m

Awful idea.    It is like the two political parties are in a race to see who can destroy the country faster.

Y'know, if they have the votes then there is nothing stopping them.  But, I remember when the GOP warned Harry Reid not to remove SCOTUS filibuster but he did anyways.

This will come back to bite them, of course, and I'm sure their solution to that problem will be to keep expanding the court until they get their majority.  Who knows, we may have 101 SCOTUS justices by the end of the century if the Democrats keep playing games.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a good idea or time to even talk about this.   Too much unrest.  Come on man..we got rid of Trump and now this already.  Why?   We need some stabilty not more divisiveness.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bozo said:

This is not a good idea or time to even talk about this.   Too much unrest.  Come on man..we got rid of Trump and now this already.  Why?   We need some stabilty not more divisiveness.

you make way too much sense.  good luck with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I didn't vote for Joe Biden. Nor did I vote for Trump (certainly not) but Biden's refusal to not add justices to the Supreme Court struck me as evasive at best, as disingenuous at worst. The Democrats doing this will forever change the structure of government. It is not a good idea to have thirteen justices so that you strike a temporary majority. This is indeed an option that will lose them the Senate and the House in the midterms.

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, shadrap said:

a sorry state of affairs.  politics will reach a new low & I never thought that possible.

I feel like I’ve been saying this every year for the past 10+ yrs.  Somehow we find a new low.  

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

This is why I didn't vote for Joe Biden. Nor did I vote for Trump (certainly not) but Biden's refusal to not add justices to the Supreme Court struck me as evasive at best, as disingenuous at worst. The Democrats doing this will forever change the structure of government. It is not a good idea to have thirteen justices so that you strike a temporary majority. This is indeed an option that will lose them the Senate and the House in the midterms.

Yep. Jo got my vote and I know more about you then I do her.  It honestly feels like each party is actively trying to push the moderates/centrist out.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The chance of this happening is close to zero.  It's just grandstanding.   Why are people pretending like this is news?

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, -fish- said:

The chance of this happening is close to zero.  It's just grandstanding.   Why are people pretending like this is news?

And its a bad idea if it did.

What I find funny is those who most often complain about unnamed sources...are running with a story by...yeah, you guessed it...

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, -fish- said:

It is congress, after all.

Exactly.  They should be the standard not the excuse.  When are we going to hold these hacks accountable?  
 

 

 

* that was rhetorical, “we” won’t.  New lows will just be found and accepted.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Makes it no less disgusting imo. 

As grandstanding goes it's not even (close to) the most disgusting thing this year.

How many months has it been since a bunch of senators stood up and refused to confirm the next president on the grounds of the world's most phony and transparent voter fraud claims while irate citizens that believed them pounded on the doors outside their chamber and eventually broke through?

Next to that, this is barely mediumstanding, especially given the precedent that was set just a few months ago by the other side on stacking the court via whatever means necessary, so long as it was technically legal.  And that was with actual followthrough, not just grandstanding.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FreeBaGeL said:

As grandstanding goes it's not even (close to) the most disgusting thing this year.

How many months has it been since a bunch of senators stood up and refused to confirm the next president on the grounds of the world's most phony and transparent voter fraud claims while irate citizens that believed them pounded on the doors outside their chamber and eventually broke through?

Next to that, this is barely mediumstanding, especially given the precedent that was set just a few months ago by the other side on stacking the court via whatever means necessary, so long as it was technically legal.  And that was with actual followthrough, not just grandstanding.

distinction without a difference.  
 

All of these things are just symptoms to the same disease.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

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.

Well thats true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Quint said:

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. 

No.   

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah blah blah. And Puerto Rico and Washington DC will become states and so on and so on. It's one of those threats that both sides like to have hanging out there but know they will never follow through on. Mainly because you lose the threat of it which is all they want. A nothing story that one side will use to fearmonger while the other side will use to say the other side is fearmongering. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

Y'know, if they have the votes then there is nothing stopping them.  But, I remember when the GOP warned Harry Reid not to remove SCOTUS filibuster but he did anyways.

This will come back to bite them, of course, and I'm sure their solution to that problem will be to keep expanding the court until they get their majority.  Who knows, we may have 101 SCOTUS justices by the end of the century if the Democrats keep playing games.

So fitting of the Left, when things don’t go their way just whine and change the rules. Sad times we are in. 

  • Like 1
  • Love 2
  • Laughing 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

And its a bad idea if it did.

What I find funny is those who most often complain about unnamed sources...are running with a story by...yeah, you guessed it...

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Sources.  Every.  Damn.  Post.   

  • Like 3
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrible idea. And Democrats forget their history: FDR tried this and the resulting election destroyed his New Deal majority. 

The Democratic Party is winning over public opinion right now. They SHOULD dominate the next election because most folks don’t like how extreme Republicans have gotten and how they oppose everything. The only way Democrats can lose is if they go extreme themselves and shoot themselves in the foot- which they seem to be doing. They’re very good at it.  

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Terrible idea. And Democrats forget their history: FDR tried this and the resulting election destroyed his New Deal majority. 

The Democratic Party is winning over public opinion right now. They SHOULD dominate the next election because most folks don’t like how extreme Republicans have gotten and how they oppose everything. The only way Democrats can lose is if they go extreme themselves and shoot themselves in the foot- which they seem to be doing. They’re very good at it.  

Perhaps because they're as beholden to their crazy base as Republicans were to theirs. This stems from that part of the base most in the country find anathema. It's happened now on both sides. Wait until both parties start getting serious votes siphoned off by third parties.

If it doesn't happen that way, we're in trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FreeBaGeL said:

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.

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.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Perhaps because they're as beholden to their crazy base as Republicans were to theirs. This stems from that part of the base most in the country find anathema. It's happened now on both sides. Wait until both parties start getting serious votes siphoned off by third parties.

If it doesn't happen that way, we're in trouble.

Except this isn’t the Democratic leadership beholden  to that extreme base, is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No way this passes through the Senate even if the house is dumb enough to pass it. And even if it did, by the time it came to nominate those new justices, the mid-terms likely would have passed and a decent chance the Dem majority is gone. Then McConnell obstructs and stalls, which is his super power. Then, based on the stupidity of this move, a Republican POTUS would likely get elected. That would be a historically fitting move for the Democrats, to expand the SC just in time to let a Republican president fill the vacancies.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Insein said:

Blah blah blah. And Puerto Rico and Washington DC will become states and so on and so on. It's one of those threats that both sides like to have hanging out there but know they will never follow through on. Mainly because you lose the threat of it which is all they want. A nothing story that one side will use to fearmonger while the other side will use to say the other side is fearmongering. 

Tend to agree. Don't see how this would have any chance of happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must have missed it when Republicans paid a price for their power grab with Merrick Garland.  As I recall, it galvanized them electorally and provided them a majority on the Court they'd have otherwise not had.

 

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rockaction said:

This is why I didn't vote for Joe Biden. Nor did I vote for Trump (certainly not) but Biden's refusal to not add justices to the Supreme Court struck me as evasive at best, as disingenuous at worst. The Democrats doing this will forever change the structure of government. It is not a good idea to have thirteen justices so that you strike a temporary majority. This is indeed an option that will lose them the Senate and the House in the midterms.

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.  🤣🤣🤣

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

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.

:goodposting:

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, tommyGunZ said:

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.  🤣🤣🤣

It’s kind of a thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

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? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, rockaction said:

This is why I didn't vote for Joe Biden. Nor did I vote for Trump (certainly not) but Biden's refusal to not add justices to the Supreme Court struck me as evasive at best, as disingenuous at worst. The Democrats doing this will forever change the structure of government. It is not a good idea to have thirteen justices so that you strike a temporary majority. This is indeed an option that will lose them the Senate and the House in the midterms.

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. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

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. 
 

He has said he is “not a fan”.

Id prefer a stronger disagreement for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hank Johnson (D) GA, is all for it.
He will be one of those who introduce it today.

Let's listen to this guy....after all, he was the one who worried that the island of Guam would tip over if it became too populated

It is opinions such as his that must be valued.

Edited by Opie
  • Like 2
  • Laughing 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Opie said:

Hank Johnson (D) GA, is all for it.
He will be one of those who introduce it today.

Let's listen to this guy....after all, he was the one who worried that the island of Guam would tip over if it became too populated

It is opinions such as his that must be valued.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

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 will be there too....
I agree with your premise regarding Johnson, but I don't see Nadler as a Democratic "throw away".

Edited by Opie
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...