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
#52
#52
evillawyer said:
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. That's what Mitch has done. I'm confident that the Dems can do it and weather any piss ant backlash from the 35% of cranky aging white conservatives. Demographics are on our side. Georgia and Texas will turn blue. Other states aren't far behind.
Click to expand...
Dems aren’t gong to have the votes. Hell because Cal couldn’t keep his **** in his pants they might fail to regain control of the senate all together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and StarRaider
#59
#59
WATCH: Joe Biden Says ‘You’ll Know My Opinion on Court-packing When the Election Is Over’

Former Vice President Joe Biden has refused, once again, to reveal his stance on “packing” the Supreme Court: “You’ll know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over,” he told reporters in Arizona on Thursday.

Biden Promises to Reveal Stance on Court Packing After Election
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and StarRaider
#61
#61
Maybe I need to start ANOTHER thread about the SC and ask....

" so, do you guys support the Republicans packing the court on out to 21 as soon as they get elected again in 4 years?"

They will absolutely follow suit if the Dems do it ...shoot, we can just keep giving away these LIFETIME appointments with great salaries and benefits, EVERY time the Senate changes hands....until we put an end to unemployment...right???

If the dems add 6 more Dem justices to a 9 member scotus....and YOU support that....then let US hear you rationally defend that arbitrary number of 15 and say that the Republicans shouldn't make it 21....

Let us here that rational defense from 1 of the 4 of you idiots that voted "yes"...but strangely stayed as far away from the vice president verbal beatdown....as well as a couple other threads where yall know your party is absolute garbage....

Cannot wait to hear this...about ",magic" number 15.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: mr.checkerboards, McDad and volfanhill
#62
#62
Orangeburst said:
And now I see why Dallas spends countless posts responding to your posts. Frankly, I do not have the patience.
Click to expand...

Or you don’t understand the subject matter well enough to see the ramifications of the answers to the question and are afraid a wrong answer will look dumb. To me, that seems more consistent with the immediate, repeated deflections, attempt to make me the subject of the conversation, and ultimate attempt to blame me for your inability to answer.

🤷🏻‍♂️
 
#63
#63
Rasputin_Vol said:
Man, I hope you are wrong.
Click to expand...
I don’t know Ras but it seems to me that 546 people claiming all representation to a nation of 330 million is a little low. I can’t say it won’t be horrible but I also can’t say it might not be a good thing. That is about 1 representative (including the president and VP) for 600,000 people. I hope I’m wrong on a lot of things that I think are coming down the pike. This is one that doesn’t worry me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#64
#64
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#65
#65
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...
So,spend more $$$ to get the same result..... You are cut out for government work🤣
 
#66
#66
What worries me is that this is only a microcosm of the real problem.

The MSM has whipped up anger, frustration, hate, and outright violence between the 2 crooked parties..and in some cases their followers, who are obviously guilty as well as the politicians and Media....

So now there is absolutely ZERO compromise, mutual respect, etc....and rarely if ever is the "good of the people" and whats best for America and Americans on ANY OF THEIR MINDS. All they care about is messing up whatever the other guys are doing, and trying to stick it to them as much as they possibly can...

I do not see a way out of this. If Jesus Himself was elected President, and tried to (without Divine intervention) unite both parties and their followers...for the good of mankind....BOTH parties would gang up on Him and try to run him out of Washington on rails . Yall KNOW this is true. Same thing for these crooks EVER allowing a viable 3rd party to actually have some power in government.

So this is where we are. Candidates for the MOST prestigious and powerful human on Earth, on TV yelling at eachother to "shut up" and " you're lying" ....like a couple of kindergarten kids fighting over a Lego. How embarrassing is that? Please don't think " well if THEY didn't say so and so..." NOPE. They were all a complete embarrassment to any rational person older than 16...except for Mike Pence. He held his composure from what I saw, and I very much wish he was about to be elected, to maybe, just maybe, restore some civility and dignity to our "leaders". I am glad personally for what Trump has accomplished in office...I have told my kids that he is NOT a role model though, and might not be a very moral person in some cases. Thats between him and God ...and not my place to judge. It is my place to point out to my kids and one day their kids WHO is actually a person they should look up to and really respect.

Seems we are screwed boys. Just a matter of time now honestly . I know how this all ends though, I read the Book. So I've got that going for me...which is nice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 825VOL, AM64, StarRaider and 2 others
#69
#69
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...

There is something very wrong with courts writing law. No problem with courts determining whether a law is or is not constitutional. If legislation is deemed unconstitutional, it should be invalidated and passed back to the legislature to fix or removed. The Legislative Branch (made up of elected people) is charged with writing legislation; the Judicial Branch is overstepping bounds, and is the branch most acting as a dictatorship. To add justices for the sake of political expediency is heresy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#70
#70
AM64 said:
There is something very wrong with courts writing law. No problem with courts determining whether a law is or is not constitutional. If legislation is deemed unconstitutional, it should be invalidated and passed back to the legislature to fix or removed. The Legislative Branch (made up of elected people) is charged with writing legislation; the Judicial Branch is overstepping bounds, and is the branch most acting as a dictatorship. To add justices for the sake of political expediency is heresy.
Click to expand...
says the guy who risked his life to defend the United States Constitution.
 
#72
#72
NEO said:
If packing is the new thing, we are gonna see major laws get flipped every time the senate and president flip. Its gonna put our system in chaos.

The judges will get more and more radical and the divide will grow.
Click to expand...

It's just like operating the house and senate with a simple one vote majority. Government becomes bipolar - fence sitters can flop back and forth - flipping legislation with them. Justices were meant to be judges - unbiased - apolitical; we've really lost our way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO and StarRaider
#74
#74
VolStrom said:
There have been 9 court justices for 150 years. Why do the democrats now think they need more?
Click to expand...
Ok. Nobody appears to have any better reasons than “but muh historical precedent,” so I’ll answer your question now.

I don’t agree with court packing, but to me the most compelling argument in its favor is that expanding the court is a way to preserve the status quo.

That status quo being that we presently have a court that does not go around dramatically upsetting established precedent based on political ideology. (See June Medical Services example I gave earlier. Roberts (and Kagan) understand that a great deal of the court’s authority is derived from the rule of law, which is best served when the outcome does not appear to be rooted in partisan politics.

Maintaining that balance requires some degree of deference to and respect for precedent, even in the face of jurisprudential disagreements about whether the correct outcome was achieved. In practice, that means incremental changes rather than sweeping away the entire structure.

Coming to your answer: the impetus here is that the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, as a replacement for a Ruth Bader Ginsburg, threatens to upset that status quo. Not only because she shifts the composition of the court significantly, but because she has written law review articles attempting to reconcile overturning some precedent that is inconsistent with her originalist philosophy, while retaining some other inconsistent precedent.

So, one could argue that what Republicans have done, between Scalia’s seat and Ginsburg’s, has unsettled the aforementioned status quo. They now seek to freeze it at this new anticipated normal by shaming democrats with the same extra-constitutional restraints on congressional authority, such as prudence and respect for established norms, that they themselves rejected in 2016. (For proof of concept, see: this entire thread).

So, to whatever extent that the present status quo has value, a case could be made for expanding the court to 11 and returning the swing vote to Roberts, who has used it responsibly since Kennedy’s retirement.

Beyond 11, the case gets weaker, but I’ve yet to see an argument against it that is anything other than partisan hypocrisy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OHvol40
#75
#75
evillawyer said:
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. That's what Mitch has done. I'm confident that the Dems can do it and weather any piss ant backlash from the 35% of cranky aging white conservatives. Demographics are on our side. Georgia and Texas will turn blue. Other states aren't far behind.
Click to expand...
Play stupid games? Pelosi literally bragged a month ago about having something up her sleeve and today she is presenting the 25th amendment lol.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: mr.checkerboards, AM64 and StarRaider
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top