Phazer
.338 Win Mag
Let the Dems do it. They'll add 4 new justices. When Republicans take the senate again, they'll add 4 more. Wash, rinse, repeat. In the end, the SCOTUS will become an illegitimate star chamber of unelected partisans.
House and Senate Democrats Plan Bill to Add Four Justices to Supreme Court
- Thread starter DoD1776
- Start date
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
The problem is, they also do not question how they're told to vote. You gotta admire the lemming-like adherence to the party line that the Dems exhibit when voting. Well...not really admire...maybe...fear. Whether legislation is good or bad, with Dems it's always, "Party First!" (Hmmm....we've seen that somewhere before.)
Like you said, the days of "middle of the road" pro america dems like joe manchin are quickly fading. I think they tolerate him in WV because if they run someone farther left they risk losing his seat to a republican
spat
.700 Nitro Express
If they take SCOTUS their behavior in the last election will look like the "most secure election in history" that they claim it was.
You'll see rural Texas go blue (and with 250% voter turnout to boot).
The conservatives in congress will lose. There will just be Democrats and RINOs.
Conservatives will never win an election again.
They'll pull shit that would make Stalin, Mao, and the Kim family blush.
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
I totally agree.
They want to codify all of their electoral slight-of-hand from the 2020 election cycle.
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
No surprise here. When Joe flat-out refused to answer the direct question of "will you pack the courts...?" during the campaign, he unwittingly answered in the affirmative.
I really don't see any way this gets 60 votes in the Senate though.
I really don't see any way this gets 60 votes in the Senate though.
Toecutter
.308 Win
The constitution grants them no power to do such a thing , this country is falling apart because no one cares any more its all about who wins.
Well within their job description and within the law to do this.
Would all be mad if Trump were doing this same thing?
Would all be mad if Trump were doing this same thing?
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
I would be, because it undermines that branch of government. Not that I like SCOTUS. I think SCOTUS is a joke and should never had existed if the founders gave enough thought to a court actually being non-political (which isn't possible).
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
There absolutely is. There always is. It's the first line in fact.
We allow it or do not allow it. The People are the highest authority. It's up to us to speak up and speak out against this, as it is only be consent that we allow ourselves to be ruled over.
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
Yes, it does.
The senate has constitutional authority to "advise and consent" regarding judicial nominees. The senate could quite simply confirm four Xiden Supreme Court nominees.
Toecutter
.308 Win
You correct I found it, article 3 section one.
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
No if here. Its already happened. Real Republicans will never be eleacted again. We have reached the tipping point.
Arjuna
.338 Win Mag
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
I would be angry if Trump was doing this. I tend to be a creature of habit, I like things to remain constant as much as possible. And changing rules to something out of spite can come back to bite you big time when you lose your majority. See "Harry Reid:Nuclear Option"
drowhawk
.44 mag
The reason it has remained relatively untouched for a long time is because most have always respected the sanctity and autonomy of the judicial branch. Appointments were never meant to be a political thing. I think the founding fathers intended the number of justices to be nothing more than an administrative and logistical decision, and that the number of justices would be irrelevant in a truly neutral panel. I would argue the only fair way going forward is to hold elections for SCOTUS appointments after being vetted by the senate judiciary committee.
The hostile takeover is nearly complete. You can see the dems scratching their neck like fiends announcing this proposed change to the supreme court. They know they needed the house, senate, and executive to pull it off and I believe their only regret is not doing it under Obama.
I feel bad for neither side. Both of them dug their own grave and now they get to sleep in it. Obama and the democrats ramped up the centralization and expansion of power within the executive branch that set the framework for Trump to knock it out of the park in terms of ruling by executive fiat. Trump was the perfect scapegoat for the steamrolling of our beloved constitution. Now anyone associated with his movement is viewed as just another racist white supremacist. Even if the entire argument is based on a fallacy.
The hostile takeover is nearly complete. You can see the dems scratching their neck like fiends announcing this proposed change to the supreme court. They know they needed the house, senate, and executive to pull it off and I believe their only regret is not doing it under Obama.
I feel bad for neither side. Both of them dug their own grave and now they get to sleep in it. Obama and the democrats ramped up the centralization and expansion of power within the executive branch that set the framework for Trump to knock it out of the park in terms of ruling by executive fiat. Trump was the perfect scapegoat for the steamrolling of our beloved constitution. Now anyone associated with his movement is viewed as just another racist white supremacist. Even if the entire argument is based on a fallacy.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Appointments weren't political until very recently.
Both RBG and Scalia were nearly unanimously confirmed.
As usual the dems started the mess with Bork, and escalated with Thomas.
Bigfoot
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Pelosi doesn't back Democrats "court packing" bill, will not bring it to a vote.
nypost.com
I do not trust Pelosi, what is she up to?
It sounds good, for now, but y'all know how the Democrats roll.
Pelosi rejects fellow Democrats’ ‘court-packing’ bill, will not bring it to vote
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not support the effort by her fellow Democratic congressional leaders to expand the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 — and will not bring such a bill to …
nypost.com
I do not trust Pelosi, what is she up to?
It sounds good, for now, but y'all know how the Democrats roll.
Last edited:
TEOTWAWKI inc.
.338 Win Mag
She must be trying to take it a step further. Even more SCJ's?Pelosi doesn't back Democrats "court packing" bill, will not bring it to a vote.
Pelosi rejects fellow Democrats’ ‘court-packing’ bill, will not bring it to vote
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not support the effort by her fellow Democratic congressional leaders to expand the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 — and will not bring such a bill to …
I do not trust Pelosi, what is she up to?
It sounds good, for now, but y'all know how the Democrats roll.
Steal2B
.700 Nitro Express
She knows the votes are not there to support this bill right now ... but there is also no way the Nadler Circus would have happened without her blessing. This may have been done to test the water, or to send a chilling effect to the courts, or leverage some other bullshit in the works.
Phazer
.338 Win Mag
Bill? For what?Pelosi doesn't back Democrats "court packing" bill, will not bring it to a vote.
Pelosi rejects fellow Democrats’ ‘court-packing’ bill, will not bring it to vote
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not support the effort by her fellow Democratic congressional leaders to expand the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 — and will not bring such a bill to …
I do not trust Pelosi, what is she up to?
It sounds good, for now, but y'all know how the Democrats roll.
What legislation or statute set SCOTUS at nine justices?
There isn't any.
Im not sure if this has already been posted but I will read through this thread later.
After a little research I learned that the last time we added any justices was 1889 following the Civil War. The courts were 3 years behind and at the pace the system worked, they would never have caught up. Congress decided we needed a couple more justices because back then the SCOTUS worked a bit differently....the justices traveled around and not all together. With 9 justices they could be in more places. This was a time when horse and buggy was the norm with trains available to limited areas.
This addition of justices was very well thought out and EVERYONE agreed it was needed. Then in the mid 20th century FDR wanted to add a couple but EVERYONE from both parties agreed IT WAS UNNECESSARY. Both the Dems and Republicans back then agreed that adding justices was only necessary if there was an extreme need.
Now there is even less of a need to add justices. We have airplanes and computers adding any justices would only serve one purpose, to add players to their team.
I say let the highest court in the land decide if they need more justices to help them. Im 100% positive the Dems would not like that outcome.
After a little research I learned that the last time we added any justices was 1889 following the Civil War. The courts were 3 years behind and at the pace the system worked, they would never have caught up. Congress decided we needed a couple more justices because back then the SCOTUS worked a bit differently....the justices traveled around and not all together. With 9 justices they could be in more places. This was a time when horse and buggy was the norm with trains available to limited areas.
This addition of justices was very well thought out and EVERYONE agreed it was needed. Then in the mid 20th century FDR wanted to add a couple but EVERYONE from both parties agreed IT WAS UNNECESSARY. Both the Dems and Republicans back then agreed that adding justices was only necessary if there was an extreme need.
Now there is even less of a need to add justices. We have airplanes and computers adding any justices would only serve one purpose, to add players to their team.
I say let the highest court in the land decide if they need more justices to help them. Im 100% positive the Dems would not like that outcome.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Interesting question.
What if the Dems pass the bill and SCOTUS says it's unconstitutional ?
There's nothing in the constitution that says they can't add justices, but that doesn't appear to matter anymore.
What if the Dems pass the bill and SCOTUS says it's unconstitutional ?
There's nothing in the constitution that says they can't add justices, but that doesn't appear to matter anymore.
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
This how she will add legitimacy to this for a vote later on down the road. Does anyone really believe that this presidential commissions recommendation after say... 18 months and $50 million dollars spent, will be anytning other than exactly what those funding want?