Democrats should expand the Supreme Court by two Justices in 2020

NiftyNiblick said:
Anything that could rescue the SCOTUS from the crisis that it's in now is definitely worth considering.
Click to expand...

Our Supreme Court will make unconstitutional to pack the court.

That’s right bitch. We own the court now.

Wait until Ginsburg and Breyer die. I hope it is soon
 
Teflon Don said:
Our Supreme Court will make unconstitutional to pack the court.

That’s right bitch. We own the court now.

Wait until Ginsburg and Breyer die. I hope it is soon
Click to expand...

Like I always say, all "activist" judges ever meant was "the other guy's" judges. The unexceptional US Supreme Kangaroo Court has been revealed to the world for what it is.
 
Make the Supreme Court bigger. It's not a priesthood, it should represent America.

Increasing the number of justices would reduce the importance of any single retirement or appointment. And it would also reduce the mystique of the court, which I see as a feature, not a bug. Nine justices could seem like a special priesthood; two or three times that number looks more like a legislature, and those get less respect. Which would be fair.

The Supreme Court, after all, isn’t made up of Platonic guardians. It’s made up of lawyers. If you asked Americans at random what kind of people they think are best suited to provide moral leadership, I rather doubt that lawyers would rank high on the list. The Supreme Court isn’t really some sacred body of great moral thinkers. Rather, as one of my constitutional law professors pointed out, it’s essentially a committee, a committee made up of lawyers. Underneath the robes and fancy building, that’s all it is.

Nonetheless, we’ve come to a place where the Supreme Court doesn’t just decide technical legal issues, but is called on to decide some of our most pressing moral and social questions. If the court is going to remain in that role, then it needs to be more representative of America as a whole, and less sensitive to minor changes that produce major shifts in its decisions. (And the near-universal belief that replacing Anthony Kennedy with a conservative will produce such a major shift is also an admission that the Supreme Court today isn’t about legal rigor or “neutral principles,” but essentially about politics.)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-justices-more-like-america-column/749326002/
 
We should do the minimum necessary to preserve the rights we consider absolutely necessary

If they overturn Roe v. Wade, we should expand it by two and appoint Anthony Kennedy like moderates

We should not explicitly state that we will expand the court, and we should not overdo and appoint extremely liberal justices

This is an absolute last resort
 
Like a lot of this law is not going to be definitely overturned, we can't be certain of that. Roberts might move left. Be more cautious. You don't want to set a precedent like this unless you absolutely have to.
 
White privilege is real said:
We should do the minimum necessary to preserve the rights we consider absolutely necessary

If they overturn Roe v. Wade, we should expand it by two and appoint Anthony Kennedy like moderates

We should not explicitly state that we will expand the court, and we should not overdo and appoint extremely liberal justices

This is an absolute last resort
Click to expand...

Don’t have the courage of your convictions?


I am going to save this thread if the GOP retains both chambers after November

See how excited you are about court packing then

You know you fuckers never learn. You are absolutely convinced you will win in November

You were absolutely convinced you would take down Kavanaugh

Now we teach you another lesson
 
Teflon Don said:
Our Supreme Court will make unconstitutional to pack the court.

That’s right bitch. We own the court now.

Wait until Ginsburg and Breyer die. I hope it is soon
Click to expand...

How the fuck are they supposed to do that? So we increase the court by two, the two justices join the court, and then the Republicans launch a case against it. Who do you think is going to view the case? The supreme court with the additional justices. It would be a kangaroo court like decision to do that in any case because the plain text of the constitution could not be clearer. If the other justices made outrageous decisions like that, the legislative and executive would be well within their rights to ignore it and tell them to get packing.
 
White privilege is real said:
Like a lot of this law is not going to be definitely overturned, we can't be certain of that. Roberts might move left. Be more cautious. You don't want to set a precedent like this unless you absolutely have to.
Click to expand...

We absolutely have to as the republicans have demonstrated that they will do whatever they can to hold power regardless of rules, norms, and precedent. .
 
White privilege is real said:
How the fuck are they supposed to do that? So we increase the court by two, the two justices join the court, and then the Republicans launch a case against it. Who do you think is going to view the case? The supreme court with the additional justices. It would be a kangaroo court like decision to do that in any case because the plain text of the constitution could not be clearer. If the other justices made outrageous decisions like that, the legislative and executive would be well within their rights to ignore it and tell them to get packing.
Click to expand...

He's too stupid to know that there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent expanding the court.
 
Darth Omar said:
Here is a teaching moment:

A big reason the last few weeks happened is because the Court is very nearly becoming a legislative body made of nine members. Judicial activism causes both sides to stack the court with ideologues instead of jurists who will only rule according to what the constitution will abide.

In a judicial activist court, the nine members become essentially Super Legislators. You are basically advocating for more Super Legislators.

Originalist jurists function as a bulwark against the Court becoming a legislative body of nine *unelected* Super Legislators.

The framers never envisioned the Court becoming an ideological battle ground, much less, a legislative body that makes up the constitutional rules as they go.

Your president apparently understands this.
Click to expand...

The opinions of the liberal members are representative of the opinions of the legal community at large. So called "originalists" are a small minority. The reason you guys find it so hard to appoint solidly conservative members is that you have to dig pretty fucking deep to find a lawyer who will actually agree with you for purely politically reasons, and ignore stare decisis and the text of the constitution. Like maybe 1/20 of top law school graduates will agree with that, and most of them are not bright minds. They enforce the law, not the text of the Republican party platform. This campaign to appoint a ton of political hacks over the past few decades to overturn parts of the constitution that you dislike even though the legal logic and opinion of the legal community is clear has delegitimized the court. If you don't like women have due process rights and control over their own body, you should pass a constitutional amendment repealing those parts of the constitution that establish Roe v. Wade. You shouldn't attempt to amend the constitution by appointing illegitimate hack judges like Kavnaugh and Scalia who refuse to do what the plain text of the constitution says.
 
anatta said:
I'm sure that's fine with the Dems..legislate directly from the bench
Click to expand...

Yeah spending decades trying to amend the constitution by appointing hacks with an opinion of a small minority of the legal community

That's the problem. Not these judges who've been enforcing the constitution and our legal system like RBG.
 
Teflon Don said:
My guess is that if the GOP keeps both chambers he won’t be a big fan of packing the court

It is such silliness and shows what children leftists are when they don’t get their way

Lose a Presidential election they want to eliminate the electoral college

Can’t control the Supreme Court they want to pack the Court

So laughable
Click to expand...

The people have no responsibility towards a government that rules without their consent

You should not be surprised that you trigger revolutionary action if you continue to brazenly ignore the will of the American people, you are not entitled to power
 
White privilege is real said:
The opinions of the liberal members are representative of the opinions of the legal community at large. So called "originalists" are a small minority. The reason you guys find it so hard to appoint solidly conservative members is that you have to dig pretty fucking deep to find a lawyer who will actually agree with you for purely politically reasons, and ignore stare decisis and the text of the constitution. Like maybe 1/20 of top law school graduates will agree with that, and most of them are not bright minds. They enforce the law, not the text of the Republican party platform. This campaign to appoint a ton of political hacks over the past few decades to overturn parts of the constitution that you dislike even though the legal logic and opinion of the legal community is clear has delegitimized the court. If you don't like women have due process rights and control over their own body, you should pass a constitutional amendment repealing those parts of the constitution that establish Roe v. Wade. You shouldn't attempt to amend the constitution by appointing illegitimate hack judges like Kavnaugh and Scalia who refuse to do what the plain text of the constitution says.
Click to expand...

Pray tell, what ‘plain text’ of the constitution guarantees abortion lol?

I’ll wait here.
 
White privilege is real said:
How the fuck are they supposed to do that? So we increase the court by two, the two justices join the court, and then the Republicans launch a case against it. Who do you think is going to view the case? The supreme court with the additional justices. It would be a kangaroo court like decision to do that in any case because the plain text of the constitution could not be clearer. If the other justices made outrageous decisions like that, the legislative and executive would be well within their rights to ignore it and tell them to get packing.
Click to expand...

Can’t ignore the court bitch

They can rule anything unconstitutional

Remember it’s a living document
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top