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

[Rasputin_Vol]

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.

We would probably fragment before it gets too far down the pike.

 

[landscapingvol]

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?

What other fairytales do you believe in? The only reason “packing the court” is being discussed is because the Left is pissed off that Trump is replacing their hero with a non liberal judge therefore disrupting the ideological balance they support. They won’t be adding moderate justices

 

[StarRaider]

so 10 percent are stupid enough to support the bonehead idea of politicizing the SCOTUS.

 

[RockyTop85]

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?

Just ruling out people who can’t read the opening paragraphs of my posts from the conversation.

 

[RockyTop85]

What other fairytales do you believe in? The only reason “packing the court” is being discussed is because the Left is pissed off that Trump is replacing their hero with a non liberal judge therefore disrupting the ideological balance they support. They won’t be adding moderate justices

What do you think “changing the status quo” means?

Bonus points: name a “liberal judge” currently on the court who has openly called for settled precedent to be abrogated.

 

[landscapingvol]

What do you think “changing the status quo” means?

Bonus points: name a “liberal judge” currently on the court who has openly called for settled precedent to be abrogated.

Yes, because openly calling for it is a prerequisite for it to occur. Those are lifetime appointments not some county probate court.

 

[RockyTop85]

Yes, because openly calling for it is a prerequisite for it to occur. Those are lifetime appointments not some county probate court.

0/2.

 

[happy-go_vol]

What other fairytales do you believe in? The only reason “packing the court” is being discussed is because the Left is pissed off that Trump is replacing their hero with a non liberal judge therefore disrupting the ideological balance they support. They won’t be adding moderate justices

It will be a disaster but the left has destroyed this country

 

[RockyTop85]

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.

There are variables that could be adjusted. They could shrink it back down to 9 with some sort of sunset provision. If they tied it explicitly to the retirement of the two longest serving members, that would retain the same balance (Breyer and Thomas) and create an armistice period until Alito retired.

I like terms better, but I haven’t looked at whether that’s constitutional or whether they would need an amendment. Can they even strip the active justices of life tenure or do the terms start for each seat as the justices retire? Seems like it would have to start after the departure of each justice.

Even if they do both, it still doesn’t deescalate the tension or provide a perpetual solution.

 

[AM64]

There are variables that could be adjusted. They could shrink it back down to 9 with some sort of sunset provision. If they tied it explicitly to the retirement of the two longest serving members, that would retain the same balance (Breyer and Thomas) and create an armistice period until Alito retired.

I like terms better, but I haven’t looked at whether that’s constitutional or whether they would need an amendment. Can they even strip the active justices of life tenure or do the terms start for each seat as the justices retire? Seems like it would have to start after the departure of each justice.

Even if they do both, it still doesn’t deescalate the tension or provide a perpetual solution.

A better solution instead of a "balanced" court with factions would be to depoliticize the court. I still firmly believe if the court can't write law and has to refer laws considered unconstitutional back to the legislature then we'd move significantly in that director. We'd also be moving the three branches back toward their intended functions and restoring the balance of power. We also need to set congress back in time and restore some sense of sanity and cooperation by mandating that legislation cannot pass without something like a 2/3 majority.

My real personal preference would be to allow require congressional dispute resolution with canes or ultimately duels - with deadly weapons. Maybe if they sensed the threat to life and limb, congress just might recognize that the "all other things" should be left to states and deescalate some tension over matters they shouldn't be messing in.

 

[RockyTop85]

A better solution instead of a "balanced" court with factions would be to depoliticize the court. I still firmly believe if the court can't write law and has to refer laws considered unconstitutional back to the legislature then we'd move significantly in that director. We'd also be moving the three branches back toward their intended functions and restoring the balance of power. We also need to set congress back in time and restore some sense of sanity and cooperation by mandating that legislation cannot pass without something like a 2/3 majority.

My real personal preference would be to allow require congressional dispute resolution with canes or ultimately duels - with deadly weapons. Maybe if they sensed the threat to life and limb, congress just might recognize that the "all other things" should be left to states and deescalate some tension over matters they shouldn't be messing in.

Some of that I agree with. The only way you’re going to depoliticized the court is to rewrite the constitution with a lower threshold for amendments And/or a clearer set of limits on the scope of the federal government.

 

[AM64]

Some of that I agree with. The only way you’re going to depoliticized the court is to rewrite the constitution with a lower threshold for amendments And/or a clearer set of limits on the scope of the federal government.

I don't understand the part about the lower threshold for amendments. Actually the Constitution was fairly limited with respect to the federal government scope, and the 10th Amendment seemed to put a lid on that, but federalists sure went off the rails.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

 

[bpalmer28]

Keeping it at 9 keeps both parties in check. Dems are in this situation because they’ve gone too far left and lost a series of elections because of it. The way to gain influence should be to stay in the center, not to add as many justices as you need whenever you get the chance.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

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.....

No takers. Just as I thought.

Not a lib on this board can build a rational argument as to why 9 isn't enough anymore but the arbitrary magic number 15 is the perfect solution. Let's just make it 21 then.

 

[Carl Pickens]

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.

Nice try lady...... but wrong

 

[RockyTop85]

I don't understand the part about the lower threshold for amendments. Actually the Constitution was fairly limited with respect to the federal government scope, and the 10th Amendment seemed to put a lid on that, but federalists sure went off the rails.

The problem is there are infinite number of viable interpretations. It’s all a matter of opinion. The court decides what it decides and then the only way to overrule the court is to change the text or change the court. On most of these issues, changing the text is not an option. So here we are.

The tenth amendment is an example of that. It’s not like the court just forgot about the tenth amendment. You can justify almost anything that congress does under one of the powers delegated to the federal government in the document itself. And if you can’t, the federal government can, to some degree, pressure states into enacting those policies by using the spending power (national speed limit and drinking age). And a majority of justices, conservative and liberal, have seen fit to interpret those powers broadly for probably 150 years.

The way to fix it is to go back and further articulate the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government. But good luck getting 3/4 of the states to agree on the precise scope of those powers... which is probably why it was vague to begin with.

 

[AM64]

The problem is there are infinite number of viable interpretations. It’s all a matter of opinion. The court decides what it decides and then the only way to overrule the court is to change the text or change the court. On most of these issues, changing the text is not an option. So here we are.

The tenth amendment is an example of that. It’s not like the court just forgot about the tenth amendment. You can justify almost anything that congress does under one of the powers delegated to the federal government in the document itself. And if you can’t, the federal government can, to some degree, pressure states into enacting those policies by using the spending power (national speed limit and drinking age). And a majority of justices, conservative and liberal, have seen fit to interpret those powers broadly for probably 150 years.

The way to fix it is to go back and further articulate the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government. But good luck getting 3/4 of the states to agree on the precise scope of those powers... which is probably why it was vague to begin with.

OK, got it. I guess that to some extent also goes back the the 17th amendment argument that hog and others have been making - that if senators were more tightly controlled by the states, senators would less likely be federalists. Today, though, I'm happy amendments are hard to come by because the damage potential is extremely high; and when it seems we are quite capable of debating the definition of "is", then new rules delineating responsibility probably would be no better than the old ones.

 

[37L1]

Just ruling out people who can’t read the opening paragraphs of my posts from the conversation.

Since when have you been afraid of what the "illiterate vultures" think?

 

[Wafflestomper]

No takers. Just as I thought.

Not a lib on this board can build a rational argument as to why 9 isn't enough anymore but the arbitrary magic number 15 is the perfect solution. Let's just make it 21 then.

What's the rationale behind nominating ACB after making a case four years ago for not appointing a SCOTUS justice in an election year? If you want the court packing issue to go away then don't hold a vote for ACB. The ball is in the Republicans' court right now.

 

[landscapingvol]

0/2.

You severely over estimate your basic understanding of the Constitution and your own intelligence. Let me get this straight, they are going to “pack the courts” to make it a “more fair representation of the population and the political leanings of the nation” but none of that will have an impact on their interpretation of Constitutional law or previously ruled upon established law? The entire premise of court packing is to challenge the impartiality of the Court, otherwise why would more justices need to be added, not a rubber stamp for the whims of the party in power. Twelve year olds have better critical reasoning skills. Unless you legitimately believe Senate Democrats are going to be approving strict Constitutionalists with no political leanings?

 

[landscapingvol]

What's the rationale behind nominating ACB after making a case four years ago for not appointing a SCOTUS justice in an election year? If you want the court packing issue to go away then don't hold a vote for ACB. The ball is in the Republicans' court right now.

Umm they control the Senate and the White House with a legitimate vacancy, President Obama did not. Why is that difficult to understand?

 

[newyorkvol]

What's the rationale behind nominating ACB after making a case four years ago for not appointing a SCOTUS justice in an election year? If you want the court packing issue to go away then don't hold a vote for ACB. The ball is in the Republicans' court right now.

Not to jump into the fray, but I believe there are two main arguments:

1) political expediency - meaning where there are areas subject to interpretation, you leverage your political position to your advantage. If tables were reversed, Democrats would be doing and saying the exact same thing.

2) party affiliation of President and Senate - four years ago it was split. So tiebreaker wen to the people via election. This time parties are the same. No need for tiebreaker.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Umm they control the Senate and the White House with a legitimate vacancy, President Obama did not. Why is that difficult to understand?

Nothing. I understand completely. I also understand that if democrats regain the White House and senate they make pack the court. What's difficult to understand about that?

 

[landscapingvol]

Nothing. I understand completely. I also understand that if democrats regain the White House and senate they make pack the court. What's difficult to understand about that?

Exactly the same situation You are truly an intellectual giant

 

[Wafflestomper]

Not to jump into the fray, but I believe there are two main arguments:

1) political expediency - meaning where there are areas subject to interpretation, you leverage your political position to your advantage. If tables were reversed, Democrats would be doing and saying the exact same thing.

2) party affiliation of President and Senate - four years ago it was split. So tiebreaker wen to the people via election. This time parties are the same. No need for tiebreaker.

1) the tables may well be reversed after this election and Democrats may well leverage their power--not that they should--to reciprocate for what is perceived as a stolen SCOTUS appointment. One might also say that if the tables were turned Republicans would be mulling the same thing.

2) this wasn't the argument advanced by Republicans in 2016. It was that we should not be appointing a new justice in an election year. And now that has changed.