Balancing the Supreme Court

**Concart** · 10-27-2020, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle

Ahh, you're dreaming. That's fine.

Given the fairly even split in the Federal government, there will be no changes to the size of SCOTUS much less the Constitution anytime soon. Probably not in my lifetime barring a calamity so large they are compelled to act. Something on the order of WWIII or an impact event.

Yep, the purpose of the thread to was lay out a potential justification for expanding the court based on the premise that the Senate had failed in their Constitutional duty (we can agree to disagree on that, but I didn't pull the argument out of thin air). If this DOES happen it will be purely partisan. Biden was trying to give himself cover the other night in the 60 minutes interview, but what he was saying was bullshit. He will either push for this or he won't. Getting some academics to lay out an argument like mine is just an excuse for a partisan action. I won't pretend otherwise.

**Yakuda** · 10-27-2020, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by Concart

Yep, the purpose of the thread to was lay out a potential justification for expanding the court based on the premise that the Senate had failed in their Constitutional duty (we can agree to disagree on that, but I didn't pull the argument out of thin air). If this DOES happen it will be purely partisan. Biden was trying to give himself cover the other night in the 60 minutes interview, but what he was saying was bullshit. He will either push for this or he won't. Getting some academics to lay out an argument like mine is just an excuse for a partisan action. I won't pretend otherwise.

You haven't pro used a shred of constitutional evidence. You being a whiny 2 year isn't a compelling argument.

**Doc Dutch** · 10-27-2020, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by PoliTalker

Hello Dutch Uncle,

What is the definition of 'Constitutional?'

Something that does not violate the Constitution or something that adheres to the spirit or intent?

Should the framers have anticipated every instance when an elected official simply refuses to do what is described in the Constitution and provide some penalty or recourse for that?

That goes down a bad road where operatives look for loopholes and exploit them for partisan reasons.

"We're a nation of laws". If people want something to be within the "spirit" of an idea, they need to pass a law. That's the entire job of the Legislative Branch. The "spirit" part is left up to individuals to decide.

Example; I think "balancing the Supreme Court" violates the spirit of the Constitution. Prove me wrong.** YMMV

**Nor can I prove you wrong since it's a matter of interpretation. Belief.

**Doc Dutch** · 10-27-2020, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by Yakuda

You haven't pro used a shred of constitutional evidence. You being a whiny 2 year isn't a compelling argument.

Your Anger Management training has failed. Ask for a refund.

**Yakuda** · 10-27-2020, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle

Your Anger Management training has failed. Ask for a refund.

Still no evidence of you claimed. Pathetic shit stain that you are

**Doc Dutch** · 10-27-2020, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Concart

Yep, the purpose of the thread to was lay out a potential justification for expanding the court based on the premise that the Senate had failed in their Constitutional duty (we can agree to disagree on that, but I didn't pull the argument out of thin air). If this DOES happen it will be purely partisan. Biden was trying to give himself cover the other night in the 60 minutes interview, but what he was saying was bullshit. He will either push for this or he won't. Getting some academics to lay out an argument like mine is just an excuse for a partisan action. I won't pretend otherwise.

Agreed; it's a Democrat meme in the last month of a Presidential election. Any bet that the argument mostly disappears after November 3rd?

Biden won't push for it because he knows, like Pelosi knew about the impeachment, that it is doomed to failure. Why? Because they have staffs that can add up votes in Congress.

They'd have a better chance of passing a gun ban since all they need is a simple Congressional majority, not a ratification of 38 states.

**Doc Dutch** · 10-27-2020, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Yakuda

Still no evidence of you claimed. Pathetic shit stain that you are

Like your bunk buddy CFM, you provide the evidence.

**Yakuda** · 10-27-2020, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle

Like your bunk buddy CFM, you provide the evidence.

Still nothing cum wad? Back up your claim scrotum mouth

**Concart** · 10-27-2020, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle

Agreed; it's a Democrat meme in the last month of a Presidential election. Any bet that the argument mostly disappears after November 3rd?

Biden won't push for it because he knows, like Pelosi knew about the impeachment, that it is doomed to failure. Why? Because they have staffs that can add up votes in Congress.

They'd have a better chance of passing a gun ban since all they need is a simple Congressional majority, not a ratification of 38 states.

You do not have to amend the constitution to change the size of the court. So they certainly could do this.

**Yakuda** · 10-27-2020, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by Concart

You do not have to amend the constitution to change the size of the court. So they certainly could do this.

With your only argument being, "It's not fair trump got to pick 3".

**countryboy** · 10-27-2020, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Concart

Simple. Merritt Garland was legitimately nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court, but the Senate failed to even consider his nomination. In order to correct that, a seat should be added to the Supreme Court and Garland should be considered by the Senate for that open seat, or the person who filled that seat should be removed from the court. Since there is no reason to remove Gorsuch, we'll just have to add one more extra seat that will be appointed by President Biden. Done. No court packing necessary. The balance is restored, conservatives still have a 6-5 majority (it should actually be 5-4 at this point).

Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer should make this happen.

Discuss.

It's MERRICK, you low information dipshit.

No correction necessary the Constitution spells this out clearly enough for even you to understand. The President nominates, The Senate confirms. Period, end of story. The Constitution says nothing about a "balanced court".

And please stop lying about a "6-3" court. Roberts votes with you leftist scumbags. We now have a 5-4 SCOTUS. Sounds pretty "balanced" to me. In fact, it's the definition of balanced.

**Celticguy** · 10-27-2020, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Cypress

Weird that a political party that has only won one single national election since the 1980s, has nonetheless been able to dominate and shape the nature of the nation's highest Court

Weird that anyone cares about popular vote since it has never meant anything.

**Doc Dutch** · 10-27-2020, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by Yakuda

Still nothing cum wad? Back up your claim scrotum mouth

QED. Thanks for the angry lies.

**Yakuda** · 10-27-2020, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle

QED. Thanks for the angry lies.

I'm still waiting for you to back up your claims so go fuck yourself

**Doc Dutch** · 10-27-2020, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by Celticguy

Weird that anyone cares about popular vote since it has never meant anything.

It's a political tool. "Will of the People". What they are refusing to admit is that the Constitution is the "Will of the People". They can't change the Electoral College, so they put on pink pussy hats, break out their cardboard signs and bitch about it....as is their right.

The problem is if anyone cares about their protests. I don't. It won't change anything. Better to focus on what can be changed as the Serenity prayer advises.