Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
Ha ha ha, Run Forrest Run!
There is Nothing in the Constitution that Limits the SC to Nine Justices.
- Thread starter blackascoal
- Start date
Ha ha ha, Run Forrest Run!
jimmymccready
Verified User
Flash ran right over the nay sayers, as they mumbler through swollen lips.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Trump won't be in office much longer, even if lasts to 2020. Democrats could spend the time until Trump is gone talking up the issue and gathering support.
Democrats should not consider what Trump or his supporters think or do on this.
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
Or... if the Dems take both houses in the midterms with enough votes in the Senate to support an impeachment by the House, rather than impeach Trump, they could go to him and let him know in no uncertain terms, that he has a choice. Stay in office and out of jail by playing ball with them and sign every bill they send him, or refuse and face impeachment and prosecution.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
TIME: The Supreme Court Doesn't Need 9 Justices. It Needs 27
Justice Kennedy’s retirement has prompted a chorus of cries by Democrats to resuscitate a seemingly unlikely idea: “packing” the Supreme Court.
For would-be packers, expanding the court from nine to 11 justices, if and when the Democrats take back executive and legislative power, provides the only opportunity to regain a liberal majority on the court. A packing approach, in proponents’ view, is justified by the need to “fight dirty” in exigent times. The equally vociferous refrain of anti-packers worries about protecting the integrity of court: It’s not worth compromising the institution, they say, for a temporary policy result.
The battle over court packing is being fought on the wrong terms. Americans of all political stripes should want to see the court expanded, but not to get judicial results more favorable to one party. Instead, we need a bigger court because the current institutional design is badly broken. The right approach isn’t a revival of FDR’s court packing plan, which would have increased the court to 15, or current plans, which call for 11. Instead, the right size is much, much bigger. Three times its current size, or 27, is a good place to start, but it’s quite possible the optimal size is even higher. This needn’t be done as a partisan gambit to stack more liberals on the court. Indeed, the only sensible way to make this change would be to have it phase in gradually, perhaps adding two justices every other year, to prevent any one president and Senate from gaining an unwarranted advantage.
Such a proposal isn’t unconstitutional, nor even that radical. There’s nothing sacred about the number nine, which isn’t found in the constitution and instead comes from an 1869 act of congress. Congress can pass a law changing the court’s size at any time. That contrasts it with other potentially meritorious reform ideas, like term limits, which would require amending the constitution and thus are unlikely to succeed. And countries, with much smaller populations, have much larger high courts. In 1869, when the number nine was chosen, the U.S. was roughly a tenth of its current size, laws and government institutions were far smaller and less complex, and the volume of cases was vastly lower. Supreme Court enlargement only seems radical because we have lost touch with the fundamentals of our living, breathing constitution. The flawed debate over court-packing is an opportunity to reexamine our idea of what a Supreme Court is, and some foundational, and wrong, assumptions.
The court’s current design is troubling. Proof is found in a commonplace observation at every mid-term and presidential election, when it is said that the most critical outcome of the election will be the one or handful of justices appointed to the Supreme Court by the President. The refrain has become so common that we have become blind to its frightening implications. How could it be that the most important decision a President makes is picking one non-elected lawyer, distinguished at this point mainly by their ability to avoid ever saying anything controversial, to a court that decides cases at an average rate of one or two a week?
----
The framers would be appalled by the degree to which we have abdicated responsibility for the constitution to a small, homogenous, unelected group. We should be appalled, too. But there is a solution. Enlargement will involve sacrifices by partisans on both sides, as a larger court will be less predictable. For liberals, it may be hard to move past their memories of a court that served them well over a half-century in expanding rights when political branches would not do the same. For conservatives, it may be hard to give up control just as they are finally cementing the victory of a multi-decade campaign to retake the judiciary. But increasing court size should not favor one particular party, and should appeal to all Americans—save perhaps the Supreme Court bar and former clerks.
http://time.com/5338689/supreme-court-packing/
Justice Kennedy’s retirement has prompted a chorus of cries by Democrats to resuscitate a seemingly unlikely idea: “packing” the Supreme Court.
For would-be packers, expanding the court from nine to 11 justices, if and when the Democrats take back executive and legislative power, provides the only opportunity to regain a liberal majority on the court. A packing approach, in proponents’ view, is justified by the need to “fight dirty” in exigent times. The equally vociferous refrain of anti-packers worries about protecting the integrity of court: It’s not worth compromising the institution, they say, for a temporary policy result.
The battle over court packing is being fought on the wrong terms. Americans of all political stripes should want to see the court expanded, but not to get judicial results more favorable to one party. Instead, we need a bigger court because the current institutional design is badly broken. The right approach isn’t a revival of FDR’s court packing plan, which would have increased the court to 15, or current plans, which call for 11. Instead, the right size is much, much bigger. Three times its current size, or 27, is a good place to start, but it’s quite possible the optimal size is even higher. This needn’t be done as a partisan gambit to stack more liberals on the court. Indeed, the only sensible way to make this change would be to have it phase in gradually, perhaps adding two justices every other year, to prevent any one president and Senate from gaining an unwarranted advantage.
Such a proposal isn’t unconstitutional, nor even that radical. There’s nothing sacred about the number nine, which isn’t found in the constitution and instead comes from an 1869 act of congress. Congress can pass a law changing the court’s size at any time. That contrasts it with other potentially meritorious reform ideas, like term limits, which would require amending the constitution and thus are unlikely to succeed. And countries, with much smaller populations, have much larger high courts. In 1869, when the number nine was chosen, the U.S. was roughly a tenth of its current size, laws and government institutions were far smaller and less complex, and the volume of cases was vastly lower. Supreme Court enlargement only seems radical because we have lost touch with the fundamentals of our living, breathing constitution. The flawed debate over court-packing is an opportunity to reexamine our idea of what a Supreme Court is, and some foundational, and wrong, assumptions.
The court’s current design is troubling. Proof is found in a commonplace observation at every mid-term and presidential election, when it is said that the most critical outcome of the election will be the one or handful of justices appointed to the Supreme Court by the President. The refrain has become so common that we have become blind to its frightening implications. How could it be that the most important decision a President makes is picking one non-elected lawyer, distinguished at this point mainly by their ability to avoid ever saying anything controversial, to a court that decides cases at an average rate of one or two a week?
----
The framers would be appalled by the degree to which we have abdicated responsibility for the constitution to a small, homogenous, unelected group. We should be appalled, too. But there is a solution. Enlargement will involve sacrifices by partisans on both sides, as a larger court will be less predictable. For liberals, it may be hard to move past their memories of a court that served them well over a half-century in expanding rights when political branches would not do the same. For conservatives, it may be hard to give up control just as they are finally cementing the victory of a multi-decade campaign to retake the judiciary. But increasing court size should not favor one particular party, and should appeal to all Americans—save perhaps the Supreme Court bar and former clerks.
http://time.com/5338689/supreme-court-packing/
With Merrick Garland, Republicans set the standard in practice that any and all games with nominations are open to consider.
You could even have 8 SCOTUS seats. Or 3 SCOTUS seats.
There is no hard and fast rule.
On the small chance the Democrats win the Senate, they could just say they are not going to replace any judge who retires until after the next presidential election.
So, it would simply not matter that much of RBG or one of the contards tried to retire.
I would say as a general rule, anytime the Democrats have 51 senate seats, and the opposition party is in the white house, the senate should just say no SCOTUS nominations until after the next presidential election. And even then, you could blow it off - because you really do not require nine justices.
Even if the Democrats win a Senate majority they will not have the 2/3 necessary for conviction.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
If I understand the law correctly, Trump could appoint an interim justice for 7 or 9 months to a vacant seat. Obama could have done it.
I need to research that for confirmation.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
The Evidence Is Clear: Brett Kavanaugh Lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-lies-senate-testimony-supreme-court.html
Brett Kavanaugh Should Be Impeached for Lying to Senate
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/09/18/brett-kavanaugh-should-be-impeached-lying-senate
All that republicans have kept hidden about Kavanaugh, democrats will have access to.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
Do you guys even remotely pay the fuck attention or know what is going on
Tell us where the Democrats are going to pick up 18 seats in the Senate. List the 18 seats you think they will take in order for all of your dreams to come true.
Tell ya what. I will spot ya four seats and give you the cunts Murkowski and Collins so you only need 16
Go
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
Like your delusional thinking that your little Pain Train gif that you tack on to every post is somehow a positive message for Donald Trump!
What an idiot! That gif was made to be a parody of Donald Trump! Hilarious! It basically shows how stupid and reckless you and Donald Trump are!
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
It seems to have the effect of triggering you so I am good wit it
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
I need to save this thread for when the GOP gets to 60 seats in the Senate and keeps the House
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
You're assuming no Repugnants would vote for it.
We haven't seen the Mueller report yet or what it will reveal about Trump.
They might easily get even more than 2/3.
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
See my previous reply, moron.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
We won't see the Mueller Report. Ever.
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
Who opened the sewer cover and let you back out again?
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
I had a screwdriver. It took awhile but I worked the cover off of there.
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
It don't bother me at all, I think it is hilarious the way it truly depicts such an immature in-your-face idiot Donald Trump really is, and all his cling-ons going along just for the ride!
One thing we know, is you stole it, and don't have the talent to produce it yourself.
It defines you as well, as you are nothing more than an antagonist, who wanted to Jam Donald Trump up everyone's ass and unleash the monster on everyone for a little Shock And Awe entertainment! You are only here because you are still drunk after the election and you are still trying to rub it in everyone's face that he cheated and is getting away with it!!
He's going down!
Get a life!