Democrats should expand the Supreme Court by two Justices in 2020

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.
Click to expand...

I think they do rule according to what the Constitution will abide--they just can't agree on what that means.

Very few SC cases each term deal with interpreting the Constitution.
 
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...

What's this "we"??

You're not going to appoint anyone. :laugh:
 
by all means............run with this platform. the polarization will end up a battlefield between left and right. the civil war and new revolution needs to happen sooner, rather than later. i'm buying more ammo so i can be ready to kill statists and traitors.
 
Left wing loons are irrelevant and will remain so until they find something other than a message of hate.

Trump has a natural read of the temperature of the people on Main street. You dumb fucks don't get it, you never will.

Stay on the dustbin of history where you belong.
 
White privilege is real said:
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.
Click to expand...
ridiculous. The era of liberal federal judges is over.

Not just the fact Trump is appointing them at record pace ( circuit)- but the fact Scalia is now cool
The dynamic energy of interpretation has moved completely away from Living Document.
Justice John Paul Stevens is a living legal dinosaur

Textualism/Originalism is the new cool kid that appeals to the rational legal mind
 
blackascoal said:
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?
http://time.com/5338689/supreme-court-packing/
Click to expand...

What an "ORIGINAL IDEA".....packing the court in order to legislate from the bench, as if this was never a fascist democrat plan before. :bigthink: Where have I heard this PROGRESSIVE PLAN before (progressive my ass....about as original as Jim Crow, the KKK or...……..The New COMMUNIST DEAL of FDR. :laugh: Of course......the democrats had another plan concerning the SCOTUS....YOU just recently implemented a "PLAN" to derail the appointment of one Brett M. Kavanaugh......HOW'D THAT PLAN WORK OUT? Not so good? Why.....FIRST YOU HAVE TO WIN AN ELECTION BEFORE YOU HAVE THE POWER TO ACCOMPLISH ANY PLAN. :clink: LUCK WITH YOUR (wink, wink) original PROGRESSIVE PLAN. Who you going to use as the FACE OF THIS PLAN.....SPARTACUS, PRINCESSS PO, GI JOE STOLEN VALOR....I KNOW, HOW ABOUT "creepy porn lawyer"?

https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/fdrs-court-packing-plan
 
Last edited:
blackascoal said:
Sure, if Trump wins he can do whatever he wants. :0)

If he doesn't .. which is far more likely .. guess what?
Click to expand...
BAC l I'm throughly disgusted with the racists or non- racists that happen to disagree with your political philosophy that wish you bad luck with your colon cancer.
You seem like a good man.
I truly wish you Godspeed .
I'd have you as a friend any day.
If I ever visit Atlanta , would enjoy meeting you.
And of course, if you ever come to Alaska please let me know .
Sincerely, anonymoose.
 
Last edited:
anonymoose said:
BAC l I'm throughly disgusted with the racists or non- racists that happen to disagree with your political philosophy that wish you bad luck with your colon cancer.
You seem like a good man.
I truly wish you Godspeed .
I'd have you as a friend any day.
If I ever visit Atlanta , would enjoy meeting you.
And of course, if you ever come to Alaska please let me know .
Sincerely, anonymoose.
Click to expand...

Obviously you are free to think as you want, but why would you want to be supportive that thinks like he does? And I don’t mean his support of welfare programs but his immediate desire to want to change the rules because he does not get his way politically?

Hillary doesn’t win? eliminate electoral college
Lose the Supreme Cour? Pack it with judges

Sorry but the world would be better off without vile race hustlers like him

The faster his ass cancer kills him, the better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top