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

[midnight orange]

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.

The Supreme Court has been operating outside its boundaries since John Marshall found the power of judicial review in Marbury v Madison. It is no where to be found in the constitution. I don’t like the idea of giving 9 politicians magic robes so that they can read the “entrails” and tell 330 million people what the law is. I’m not a huge fan of the constitution and the duplicitous manner in which it was conceived. I reference the constitution mostly to point out the hypocritical manner in which the government violates it. The reservations that the anti-federalist founders had towards the constitution have been coming to fruition for at least a century.

Speech of Patrick Henry (June 5, 1788) < The Anti-Federalist Papers < 1786-1800 < Documents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

 

[FLVOL_79]

No. That will just start a messy, endless cycle.

This all day..from both sides

 

[FLVOL_79]

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.

You've been doing a terrible job of it these last 4 years.

 

[JOEY'S ALL VOL !!!]

The sky is the limit.

300,000,000 Supreme Court Justices!

A robe for you, a robe for you, a robe for you, errybuddy gets a robe!

Make mine Orange please, I ain't never been much on them Black jerseys ... er, I mean robes.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

The sky is the limit.

300,000,000 Supreme Court Justices!

A robe for you, a robe for you, a robe for you, errybuddy gets a robe!

All SCOTUS cases will be tried on Facebook. Gutterberg will be the defacto chief justice, and it will be bigger than American Idol. (Is that still on?)

 

[NorthDallas40]

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.

So within the current political context usage you’re against it, but if this context can be set aside you see a larger number of seats as a means to defeat individual political ideologies natural for Justices to have even when then they try to control them. Basically a dilution of the implied political majority as it’s more opportunity for cross aisle consultation and thus leading to cross aisle concurrence in majority opinions?

Assuming I got your assertion right I’d submit back it’s just as likely over time as cumulative appointments are made we wind up right back where we are and cold even be in a position with a much larger majority spread to the point that the single swing vote is diluted to the point that it is meaningless?

 

[happy-go_vol]

300 million? I wonder if they would get to me...?

Nope, if you're a white male, you'll be last. Better identify yourself as a muslim tranny

 

[headhunter15]

 

[happy-go_vol]

These fools can make the most insane claims. Sadly, just enough people will believe these idiots

 

[golfballs]

Media: Are going to pack the SCOTUS?

Biden: You'll know after the election.

Media:

 

[RockyTop85]

So within the current political context usage you’re against it, but if this context can be set aside you see a larger number of seats as a means to defeat individual political ideologies natural for Justices to have even when then they try to control them. Basically a dilution of the implied political majority as it’s more opportunity for cross aisle consultation and thus leading to cross aisle concurrence in majority opinions?

Assuming I got your assertion right I’d submit back it’s just as likely over time as cumulative appointments are made we wind up right back where we are and cold even be in a position with a much larger majority spread to the point that the single swing vote is diluted to the point that it is meaningless?

I’m against it partly because I don’t think Democrats will stop at 2 or that, if they did stop at 2, that Republicans would say “okay, fair” and leave off adding more seats.

I think you identified the main idea, which is to basically create a situation where the politics wash out.

Setting a term for a scotus justice seems like a better long-term solution. The 18 year term seems okay to me. I’m even okay with saying a justice could be reappointed for a second term and doing partial terms for vacancies the way the senate does.

 

[0nelilreb]

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.

The problem is that once you start doing it , you can’t stop it , there’s no rules on how many there should be so it just turns into a free for all for how ever has the majority . We don’t want to argue against precedence do we ? I mean that really all abortion is standing on now .

 

[0nelilreb]

Make mine Orange please, I ain't never been much on them Black jerseys ... er, I mean robes.

Racist ..IMO

 

[NorthDallas40]

I’m against it partly because I don’t think Democrats will stop at 2 or that, if they did stop at 2, that Republicans would say “okay, fair” and leave off adding more seats.

And I agree with you. I rambled a bit (as usual I’m sure you would agree) but you were emphasizing the swing vote. Right now a singular vote carries a good deal of weight. As more seats are added I think that gets diluted. Granted all you have to have is a simple majority I know, but when the number of judges gets larger then that role on one individual seems to get diluted to me. Maybe not

I remember and interview actually with RBG on the topic of the number of justices and I believe her comment was 9 “seems about right”. That doesn’t carry any weight in and of its self and is only anecdotal but I infer that I’d guess several of the others feel that way too. They are all expected to confer with each other I would guess on opinions and adding more judges would just add to that process. It isn’t clear to me that added process is value added and what we have has worked well for around 150 years now.

 

[MontyPython]

Barrett is on the record as anti-abortion. When she's installed, that'll tilt the court 6-3, and there's every reason to believe that everything up to and possibly including Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

There's a simple problem with this whether you are pro or anti choice: The American public supports a woman's right to choose by a huge margin. If SCOTUS starts overturning women's rights, and visiting and overturning old precedent, the American people will no longer support SCOTUS.

Abortions will ALWAYS occur, regardless of the law of the land. But, the women who either do it to themselves or illegally, would unnecessarily put their own health and future reproductive capability at risk. We should never return to coat hangers and dark ally situations.

I'm comfortable with a 5-4 conservative situation, as this basically ensures status quo.

However, I am 100% in support of expanding the court when and if a 6-3 conservative majority comes to pass.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Barrett is on the record as anti-abortion. When she's installed, that'll tilt the court 6-3, and there's every reason to believe that everything up to and possibly including Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

There's a simple problem with this whether you are pro or anti choice: The American public supports a woman's right to choose by a huge margin. If SCOTUS starts overturning women's rights, and visiting and overturning old precedent, the American people will no longer support SCOTUS.

I am 100% in support of expanding the court when and if a 6-3 conservative majority comes to pass.

View attachment 312890

Without even commenting on the idiot conclusion draw from his own supporting graph...

 

[1972 Grad]

Barrett is on the record as anti-abortion. When she's installed, that'll tilt the court 6-3, and there's every reason to believe that everything up to and possibly including Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

There's a simple problem with this whether you are pro or anti choice: The American public supports a woman's right to choose by a huge margin. If SCOTUS starts overturning women's rights, and visiting and overturning old precedent, the American people will no longer support SCOTUS.

I am 100% in support of expanding the court when and if a 6-3 conservative majority comes to pass.

View attachment 312890

My understanding is if Roe V Wade was overturned, the issue would go back to the states. How many states do you think would ban all abortions?

 

[MontyPython]

My understanding is if Roe V Wade was overturned, the issue would go back to the states. How many states do you think would ban all abortions?

I take your word for procedure, but I'd say look at the current situation with pot. Fed agents threaten states routinely, and these businesses are forced to deal only in cash, etc.

 

[RockyTop85]

The problem is that once you start doing it , you can’t stop it , there’s no rules on how many there should be so it just turns into a free for all for how ever has the majority . We don’t want to argue against precedence do we ? I mean that really all abortion is standing on now .

That’s one of those extra-constitutional restraints on legislative authority that the Republicans are presently DEFENESTRATING. Hard to take those appeals seriously when the 75% of the people making them changed the “rules” 4 years ago to maintain the status quo and then changed them back 4 years later to change the status quo.

Hopefully, the moderate democrats have enough moral authority left to keep it from happening, since Republicans have lit theirs on fire.

 

[volfanjustin]

Barrett is on the record as anti-abortion. When she's installed, that'll tilt the court 6-3, and there's every reason to believe that everything up to and possibly including Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

There's a simple problem with this whether you are pro or anti choice: The American public supports a woman's right to choose by a huge margin. If SCOTUS starts overturning women's rights, and visiting and overturning old precedent, the American people will no longer support SCOTUS.

Abortions will ALWAYS occur, regardless of the law of the land. But, the women who either do it to themselves or illegally, would unnecessarily put their own health and future reproductive capability at risk. We should never return to coat hangers and dark ally situations.

I'm comfortable with a 5-4 conservative situation, as this basically ensures status quo.

However, I am 100% in support of expanding the court when and if a 6-3 conservative majority comes to pass.

View attachment 312890

Since 1973 there have been about 62 million abortions, how many more would you all like to see?

 

[0nelilreb]

That’s one of those extra-constitutional restraints on legislative authority that the Republicans are presently DEFENESTRATING. Hard to take those appeals seriously when the 75% of the people making them changed the “rules” 4 years ago to maintain the status quo and then changed them back 4 years later to change the status quo.

Hopefully, the moderate democrats have enough moral authority left to keep it from happening, since Republicans have lit theirs on fire.

Wait it’s was just 4 years ago that Harry Reid changed the status quo ? Odd I could have sworn that was in 2013 .

 

[0nelilreb]

Barrett is on the record as anti-abortion. When she's installed, that'll tilt the court 6-3, and there's every reason to believe that everything up to and possibly including Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

There's a simple problem with this whether you are pro or anti choice: The American public supports a woman's right to choose by a huge margin. If SCOTUS starts overturning women's rights, and visiting and overturning old precedent, the American people will no longer support SCOTUS.

Abortions will ALWAYS occur, regardless of the law of the land. But, the women who either do it to themselves or illegally, would unnecessarily put their own health and future reproductive capability at risk. We should never return to coat hangers and dark ally situations.

I'm comfortable with a 5-4 conservative situation, as this basically ensures status quo.

However, I am 100% in support of expanding the court when and if a 6-3 conservative majority comes to pass.

View attachment 312890

 

[VolStrom]

I find it interesting that everyone assumes that every judge placed by a republican president is going to be conservative and every judge placed by a democrat is going to be liberal. That has not always been the case over the years. It always seems to balance out.

 

[RockyTop85]

Wait it’s was just 4 years ago that Harry Reid changed the status quo ? Odd I could have sworn that was in 2013 .

Just makes it even dumber that Republicans are going to step on the same rake.

 

[37L1]

Just makes it even dumber that Republicans are going to step on the same rake.

Hey RockyTop85. How come you haven't voted in the poll?

Can't make up your mind or just want to make us guess by trying to be inscrutable?