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
#179
#179
loggervol said:
Here’s the problem, radical judges would make decisions on personal feelings and radical thoughts. The constitutional rulings should be ruled on what the constitution says on the matter at hand. It should not be with sjw in mind or what benefits who in what area. This is the problem with packing the courts. That is what the dems want to do.
Click to expand...

So what? That’s no more or less true of democrats than of republicans. Josh Hawley said it outright a few months ago: the next SCOTUS nominee needs to be willing to openly promise to overturn Roe v. Wade.
 
#180
#180
landscapingvol said:
The “precedent” that you keep referring to wasn’t invented by McConnell and was nothing more than rejecting Garland’s nomination which again has happened several times in US history. Would it help you to sleep better at night if he had admitted that they were simply rejecting his nomination instead of making up a ridiculous SC nomination in an election year defense created by Joe Biden? The facts are the Republicans controlled the Senate and rejected his nomination for a legitimate vacancy. There is not a legitimate or Constitutional argument that can be made for creating vacancies on the Court simply because you don’t like the nomination. There is no law stating that a liberal judge must be replaced by another liberal judge or the opposite. If the Democrats controlled the Senate right now, they would not bring his nomination to a vote which would be expected and there would be no cry from the media or Republicans about packing the court because it’s unfair.
Click to expand...

If the justification for doing what Republicans did in 2016 was because they were simply in the position to do so, and you think this is actually reasonable, then I don't understand what the objection to Democrats packing the court is, aside from "it's not exactly the same as what we did and I don't like it." Democrats may be in the position to do it and Republicans may not be in the position to stop it. Isn't that the only criterion for which we judge the merits of political action nowadays?

It's my understanding that the constitution allows Congress to set the number of justices. So Congress decides what a "legitimate" vacancy is. Just like when the Senate decided it was legitimate to disallow the appointment of a justice in an election year and has changed its mind four years later in order to exploit a political advantage.

If Democrats had the votes to block ACB, Republicans wouldn't really have a leg to stand on to object given what they said and did in 2016, so I don't know why you think this is a reasonable objection. It's exactly what they said should happen four years ago in fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85
#181
#181
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...

He had 8 years!
 
#191
#191
MontyPython said:
No, I'd say it's slanted conservative (which I agree with) 5-4. Adding another Trump appointee, however, tilts it too much IMO.
Click to expand...

Shocking that a liberal thinks the court will be tilted too far away from their ideology regardless of the fact that constitutionalists are considered right leaning . Smh
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Rickyvol77
#192
#192
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...
It is unconstitutional. It elimates the checks and balance set forth by article 2 and places the judicial branch as an extension of the legislative because the expansion is solely based on party line majority. I'd have this same statement if Republicans tried it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#193
#193
Wafflestomper said:
If the justification for doing what Republicans did in 2016 was because they were simply in the position to do so, and you think this is actually reasonable, then I don't understand what the objection to Democrats packing the court is, aside from "it's not exactly the same as what we did and I don't like it." Democrats may be in the position to do it and Republicans may not be in the position to stop it. Isn't that the only criterion for which we judge the merits of political action nowadays?

It's my understanding that the constitution allows Congress to set the number of justices. So Congress decides what a "legitimate" vacancy is. Just like when the Senate decided it was legitimate to disallow the appointment of a justice in an election year and has changed its mind four years later in order to exploit a political advantage.

If Democrats had the votes to block ACB, Republicans wouldn't really have a leg to stand on to object given what they said and did in 2016, so I don't know why you think this is a reasonable objection. It's exactly what they said should happen four years ago in fact.
Click to expand...
If the goal of expanding the court wasn't to fill it based on political opinion, then yes they can do that. But it's based on political opinion.
 
#194
#194
utvols88 said:
It is unconstitutional. It elimates the checks and balance set forth by article 2 and places the judicial branch as an extension of the legislative because the expansion is solely based on party line majority. I'd have this same statement if Republicans tried it.
Click to expand...
No it’s not. The number of justices has never been fixed and has varied since the late 1800’s. For all practical purposes, the Supreme Court has been a legislative entity since the 1930’s. The Supreme Court doesn’t even have the power of judicial review in the constitution. It’s a power that John Marshall “legislated” to the court. Of all the errors inherent in the constitution, the one I find most laughable is that the government is going to create a government entity to check itself. Might as well have Alabama hiring their own refs to ensure the rules of the game are followed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and hog88
#195
#195
midnight orange said:
No it’s not. The number of justices has never been fixed and has varied since the late 1800’s. For all practical purposes, the Supreme Court has been a legislative entity since the 1930’s. The Supreme Court doesn’t even have the power of judicial review in the constitution. It’s a power that John Marshall “legislated” to the court. Of all the errors inherent in the constitution, the one I find most laughable is that the government is going to create a government entity to check itself. Might as well have Alabama hiring their own refs to ensure the rules of the game are followed.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree the government checking itself is laughable but I think it is most important that the value and principles in society demand and encourage the separation of powers. Once we, as a society, relieve ourselves of that demand, we lose even the guise of it. Therefore the road to an oppressive regime is much shorter. The ideas in the constitution are designed to thrwat that and we should demand it to be kept as close as possible. That's our duty as citizens to vote people in power that will adhere to those principles set forth in the constitution. It doesn't end at the three branches as long as we do our part in preserving it. To openly set new justices based on tilting the court when it's not in your favor is outrageous.
 
#196
#196
utvols88 said:
I don't disagree the government checking itself is laughable but I think it is most important that the value and principles in society demand and encourage the separation of powers. Once we, as a society, relieve ourselves of that demand, we lose even the guise of it. Therefore the road to an oppressive regime is much shorter. The ideas in the constitution are designed to thrwat that and we should demand it to be kept as close as possible. That's our duty as citizens to vote people in power that will adhere to those principles set forth in the constitution. It doesn't end at the three branches as long as we do our part in preserving it. To openly set new justices based on tilting the court when it's not in your favor is outrageous.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with much of your sentiment but I think as citizens we have to grasp some hard truths. We have the largest government in human history under the guise of the constitution. That it has been a failure is an understatement. With the exception of being pretty good on the 1st and 2nd amendments, it is for all practical purposes a dead letter. I would also argue that our tenuous hold on the 1st and 2nd amendment is due to it being engrained in the culture more than it being codified in the constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, NorthDallas40 and hog88
#198
#198
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...
Sorry, that's not packing the Supreme Court no matter how you spin it. Lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and NorthDallas40
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top