Poll: Do you support "Packing the SCOTUS" once ACB is confirmed?

Poll: Do you support "Packing the SCOTUS" once ACB is confirmed?

  • Total voters
    131
#6
#6
There is nothing unconstitutional about packing the court. The new normal will be a same party president and senate expanding the court when possible.
 
#9
#9
midnight orange said:
There is nothing unconstitutional about packing the court. The new normal will be a same party president and senate expanding the court when possible.
Click to expand...

Yep, in 20 years there will be 15-20 on the court.
 
#12
#12
midnight orange said:
There is nothing unconstitutional about packing the court. The new normal will be a same party president and senate expanding the court when possible.
Click to expand...

Could u imagine? A new admin comes in, packs the courts yet again and spends their time overturning the prior decisions, and then again and again and again ad nasseum
I gues at some point all citizens would become judges, theoretically. That would be Ultimate Democracy.

Edit: I got 37L1ed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, 37L1 and TrumpedUpVol
#14
#14
Orangeburst said:
Could u imagine? A new admin comes in, packs the courts yet again and spends their time overturning the prior decisions, and then again and again and again ad nasseum
Click to expand...
What if they don’t undo the prior decisions? What if the court is expanded to 11 or 13 members and all they do is continue to hear cases and make decisions based on which constitutional interpretation garners the most votes with deference given to established judicial precedent, as the Court (more or less) does now?
 
#16
#16
It's already happened. The GOP blocked Obama's lower court appointees, ran the clock out, and then "packed" those openings with Trump's appointees. They blocked Garland by creating a new rule, stole the seat, and then "packed" the Court with Gorsuch after eliminating the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments. Now, they're not following their own rule so they can again "pack the court" with Barrett.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PointGuard and k-town_king
#17
#17
evillawyer said:
It's already happened. The GOP blocked Obama's lower court appointees, ran the clock out, and then "packed" those openings with Trump's appointees. They blocked Garland by creating a new rule, stole the seat, and then "packed" the Court with Gorsuch after eliminating the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments. Now, they're not following their own rule so they can again "pack the court" with Barrett.
Click to expand...
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13, Rickyvol77, ButchPlz and 1 other person
#18
#18
RockyTop85 said:
What if they don’t undo the prior decisions? What if the court is expanded to 11 or 13 members and all they do is continue to hear cases and make decisions based on which constitutional interpretation garners the most votes with deference given to established judicial precedent, as the Court (more or less) does now?
Click to expand...
There have been 9 court justices for 150 years. Why do the democrats now think they need more?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and NorthDallas40
#19
#19
evillawyer said:
It's already happened. The GOP blocked Obama's lower court appointees, ran the clock out, and then "packed" those openings with Trump's appointees. They blocked Garland by creating a new rule, stole the seat, and then "packed" the Court with Gorsuch after eliminating the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments. Now, they're not following their own rule so they can again "pack the court" with Barrett.
Click to expand...

LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13 and InVOLuntary
#20
#20
RockyTop85 said:
What if they don’t undo the prior decisions? What if the court is expanded to 11 or 13 members and all they do is continue to hear cases and make decisions based on which constitutional interpretation garners the most votes with deference given to established judicial precedent, as the Court (more or less) does now?
Click to expand...

Given that they can choose "to hear or not hear a case" I call BS. Otherwise why pack?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#21
#21
VolStrom said:
There have been 9 court justices for 150 years. Why do the democrats now think they need more?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, if I answer that question, the usual illiterate vultures will come around and make the issue about whether I support court packing. So, respectfully, I choose to Biden your question.
 
#22
#22
evillawyer said:
It's already happened. The GOP blocked Obama's lower court appointees, ran the clock out, and then "packed" those openings with Trump's appointees. They blocked Garland by creating a new rule, stole the seat, and then "packed" the Court with Gorsuch after eliminating the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments. Now, they're not following their own rule so they can again "pack the court" with Barrett.
Click to expand...


How are you licensed to practice law and cant decipher between packing and blocking?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNVOLNAVY, mr.checkerboards, InVOLuntary and 8 others
#23
#23
Orangeburst said:
Given that they can choose "to hear or not hear a case" I call BS. Otherwise why pack?
Click to expand...
I am confused. What are you calling BS on, exactly and what does their ability to choose to hear or not hear a case have to do with what I asked?
 
#25
#25
evillawyer said:
It's already happened. The GOP blocked Obama's lower court appointees, ran the clock out, and then "packed" those openings with Trump's appointees. They blocked Garland by creating a new rule, stole the seat, and then "packed" the Court with Gorsuch after eliminating the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments. Now, they're not following their own rule so they can again "pack the court" with Barrett.
Click to expand...
Yes, like that is the same thing. Still only 9 judges but numbers don't matter just like facts.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top