Let’s talk Court packing.

[Saltwater60]

I think the Republicans are dumb hypocrites for what they are doing with the SC. Do I blame them no? Would the other side do the same yes? So here we are!!
Just watched the news and they said a bunch of BS about how and why Trump shouldn’t appoint a new justice. They went all the way back to how Lincoln handled it. Really come on now??!! RBG a was appointed quicker than this new justice would be. Also what does RGB’s dying wish have to do with any of it. What if Trump wins another term he’s still the president so would he not be able to replace her at that point because her dying wish. Also if you all remember I said she was in and out because of a tumor blocking her bile duct.
So now we are at court packing I guess if Trump picks a justice or not because the libs mentioned it before this. To me this lessens the court and I wonder if it were to be challenged would the SC rule on it. Anyone know if they can rule on matters pertaining to themselves or adding more justices? It should be a fixed number whatever that number is. Also if the Do’s pack the court the R’s will just pack the court more. It will turn into another freaking circus.
This will never end!!

 

[livingston]

We the people will get fucked in the end... I believe the liberals overplayed their hand with the BLM and riots... We need laws folks .. Enforcement of the said laws. Folks have a desire to walk down the street and feel safe.. This will show up at the polls....

 

[Robin]

"We the people will get fucked in the end..."
No, that's fudge packing.
Robin

 

[Jsmegs77]

Screw what people think, and forget the "optics" (Holy Cthulhu in a bucket I hate that term!). Fill the seat. Edit: I think that should be Trump's modus operandi for the next term, if elected. Uphold the law of the land, to the letter, as applicable, no matter what, or whose Wheaties get pissed in.

 

[Modean]

Every time a Dem talks about eliminating the filibuster or packing SCOTUS I ask them how well the nuclear option worked out for them.

 

[Celt]

I think the Republicans are dumb hypocrites for what they are doing with the SC.

Why are they hypocrites? I say this to offer you perspective as I hear people saying what youre saying and its not the case. You do realize that since the late 1800s no senate has confirmed a scotus nominee of the opposite party during an election year. This is different since Trump and the senate are of the same party and Trump isnt an outgoing president.

There is no hypocrisy as far as I can tell.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Democrats are going to pack the court the second they have the opportunity to do so, regardless of what happens in the next two months.

The Constitution is extraordinarily clear on the matter of appointing justices. If a vacancy exists, the President is allowed to attempt to fill it. The Senate must "advise and consent" (confirm the appointment or deny it- or do nothing at all if they so choose). If the Senate does not confirm a nominee, or does not act on the nomination at all, the seat remains vacant.

Thats it. Thats all it says.

I thought the Republicans went about it ham-fisted with Merrick Garland and should have given him a hearing - and then roundly voted him down. But what they did, they did squarely by the rules.

 

[Phazer]

Democrats are going to pack the court the second they have the opportunity to do so, regardless of what happens in the next two months.

So....Trump should just say, "You know, Democrats...I agree. You are correct. We need a larger number of supreme court justices. Therefore, I will not appoint just a replacement to Ruth Bader Ginsberg's seat. I will nominate a slate of five prospective justices to bring the supreme court up to 13. I hope that the U.S. senate, under the leadership of Mitch McConnell, will move promptly to seat them all."

 

[Cooolone]

If they pack the court for political reasoning, the Court then loses any and all legitimacy that it might have left!

As noted, Nuclear option and also changing the filibuster worked out so great for these idiots! But we've been seeing this more and more in contemporary politics, that if you don't like the results of something, change the game that you can't win, so you can! This, rather than return to centrist politics and actually negotiate a middle ground. Politics is too contrasted today and there is no middle, you see it my way, or no way! This is going to work great when every administration tried to undo the last and as AOC proclaimed this last week, they have a New World to Create!...

Fuck them all... Drain the swamp and keep draining until all the fish are dead or gone!

 

[Phazer]

As per Mark Levin, we need a constitutional amendment (possibly through a convention of states), that allows a supermajority of states to nullify any supreme court decision.

 

[Phazer]

Just shows that the Democrat-Liberal-Socialist-Progressives have no new ideas. Franklin Roosevelt beat them to this idea by almost 100 years.

 

[Blimey]

I think the Republicans are dumb hypocrites for what they are doing with the SC.

Absolutely right. They are entirely hypocritical. Many statements by many of them are in stark contradiction to what they are doing now. The democrats are equally hypocritical. All are totally inconsistent on this.

Do I think they should not get a justice through? No. They have the power and should do it.

The only reason we're so close to the election is because an 87 year old who had been diagnosed with cancer many times in the past and was actively dying refused to give up her seat. Her dying wish is a joke. And of course, no country should ever guide itself based on somebody's dying wish. The notion is patently absurd, and embarrassing in fact to think it should matter. This isn't make-a-wish. I really think her last actions as a justice--namely hanging around way, way past the point she should have quit, was atrocious.

The dems, I am positive, will pack the court or not, regardless of this. If they can pack the court they will. Though...last time they messed with this it bit them in the ass removing the 60 person majority.

 

[Shadow2]

Packing courts is bad unless they are progressive liberals?

Lets be honest shale we , they are ALL FULL OF SHIT. No one has over turned Terry vs Ohio. One of the biggest day to day infringements on the rights of Americans we've ever seen. The patriot act, NSA, TSA and slew of other intrusions into American lives are alive and well. Conservatives push public safety laws as hard and loud as the left.

 

[BDinPutnam]

As per Mark Levin, we need a constitutional amendment (possibly through a convention of states), that allows a supermajority of states to nullify any supreme court decision.

Made up of who?

State legislators?

 

[Phazer]

Absolutely right. They are entirely hypocritical. Many statements by many of them are in stark contradiction to what they are doing now. The democrats are equally hypocritical. All are totally inconsistent on this.

The 180-degree flips by both sides proves that this is all purely political posturing.

In 2016, Republicans did not want a nominee put forward while the Democrats insisted that the senate give Obama's nominee a vote.
In 2020, the exact opposite is occurring.

Bottom line: According to the U.S. Constitution, the President of the United States has the constitutional power to nominate potential supreme court justices. The U.S. senate has the constitutional role to advise and consent on such nominees. The senate also has the constitutional power to set its own rules and its own schedule. Therefore, the senate does not have to vote on a presidential nominee. Constitutional roles were observed in 2016 and are apparently going to be observed in 2020. Political posturing be damned. The president is not "president for 3 years and 10 months with regards to judicial nominations." The president is president for a term of "four years." Period. The Democrat-Liberal-Progressives (aka Fabian Socialists) would absolutely do the same thing if they had the presidency and majority in the senate.

 

[Phazer]

Made up of who?

State legislators?

Sure. Why not? With the popular election of senators, the states were excluded from participating in the federal government. So, let 2/3 of state legislatures tell the supreme court to "screw off, you're out of touch."

 

[BDinPutnam]

Sure. Why not? With the popular election of senators, the states were excluded from participating in the federal government. So, let 2/3 of state legislatures tell the supreme court to "screw off, you're out of touch."

I dont like it.

 

[Chevusa]

Also what does RGB’s dying wish have to do with any of it.

I LOVE this "dying wish" talk the MSM is pushing. So funny.

First of all, its unverified. It could be (and probably is) all made up bullshit. Any trick the D's can pull to try to stop this they will.

Secondly, what does a dying woman's wish have to do with anything? This is the Supreme Court, not the Make A Wish foundation.

What a dirty trick they are pulling here. They think the country will be outraged that Trump went against a little old lady's last wish. LOL get real.

Follow the Constitution. Everything else is bullshit!!

 

[Chevusa]

In 2016, Republicans did not want a nominee put forward while the Democrats insisted that the senate give Obama's nominee a vote.
In 2020, the exact opposite is occurring.

The difference is in 2016 the voters decided to replace the D senate with an R senate. They voted that they do not want the D's to be in control of such things.

This time around, by vote, the people chose to maintain an R powered senate. They voted to let the will of the elected President stand.

This was nothing unexpected. Everyone knew it was a real possibility that Trump would be nominating RGB's replacement.

This was a factor in the voting decision both for the President and for the R senate to make sure the nomination reflected their values. It was probably the most important factor on peoples minds when they cast their ballot. A nomination and confirmation now is the will of the voter.

 

[Cooolone]

Agreed, dying wish has no basis in Constitutional Law and is unverifiable, based upon supposedly only one person in the room as she dies...? Yeah ok, we all buy that! Sell us that bridge over there too while you're at it, heard NY has $ issues, I'll help ya out! Hope you take a check

Is truly amazing what people believe anymore... But for the SC justices, it's simple! POTUS recommends and the Senate approves! That's it... And in RBG own words, the Gov't doesn't stop because there's an election. Again... Fuck them all. Maybe not before the election this gets done, but it gets done before Jan 20th regardless of the election results!!!

 

[SomeSoldier]

If by court packing you mean, keep putting non-Constitutional judges on the court then yes that will continue to happen.

 

[Phazer]

I dont like it.

You prefer to be ruled by 9 now-known-to-be-political-partisans than by a supermajority of elected state legislators. Okay. I, however, disagree.

 

[Robin]

Hell, if it was a dumfuckacrat president and senate there would be a swearing in ceremony the day after the funeral, complete with somber testimony reflecting RBG's dying wishes.
Fuck those traitorous fools.
Robin

 

[BDinPutnam]

You prefer to be ruled by 9 now-known-to-be-political-partisans than by a supermajority of elected state legislators. Okay. I, however, disagree.

I wouldn't quite put it that way.

 

[dwa12479]

Absolutely right. They are entirely hypocritical. Many statements by many of them are in stark contradiction to what they are doing now. The democrats are equally hypocritical. All are totally inconsistent on this.

Do I think they should not get a justice through? No. They have the power and should do it.

The only reason we're so close to the election is because an 87 year old who had been diagnosed with cancer many times in the past and was actively dying refused to give up her seat. Her dying wish is a joke. And of course, no country should ever guide itself based on somebody's dying wish. The notion is patently absurd, and embarrassing in fact to think it should matter. This isn't make-a-wish. I really think her last actions as a justice--namely hanging around way, way past the point she should have quit, was atrocious.

The dems, I am positive, will pack the court or not, regardless of this. If they can pack the court they will. Though...last time they messed with this it bit them in the ass removing the 60 person majority.

They're actually following normal precedent as far as the Senate not confirming the nominee of an opposite party POTUS in an election year. If Schumer was in charge in 2016, he a solution would have slammed Gsrland through. And if Schumer was running the show today, he would 100% shoot down any Trump nominee.

Also don't forget that in 2016 Obama was a lame-duck.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

I thought the Republicans went about it ham-fisted with Merrick Garland and should have given him a hearing - and then roundly voted him down.

Wouldn't matter if they did. The dems would just call it partisan and claim it was for show and not really a fair hearing. They would find some way to spin it as unfair and hypocritical to try and affect this nomination.

 

[Catskillkid]

There's no set number of justice positions mentioned in the Constitution. All it will take is one Congress (whether that Congress be liberal or conservative) to push to pack the court and then you have a never ending spigot. Each side will declare that SCOTUS needs more justices (to get them in the majority). This is a dangerous game no matter who plays it. There needs to be a number (nine seems good enough to me) and it needs to stay there.

 

[Jchrisls]

As per Mark Levin, we need a constitutional amendment (possibly through a convention of states), that allows a supermajority of states to nullify any supreme court decision.

I think this could potentially backfire. States not in agreement could in essence "write new federal law " by the elimination of a SCOTUS decision. Ex- Safe act overturned by new conservative majority. States challenge ruling overturning SCOTUS decision, writing the safe act to federal law by majority. Not anything anything would want.

 

[Jchrisls]

You prefer to be ruled by 9 now-known-to-be-political-partisans than by a supermajority of elected state legislators. Okay. I, however, disagree.

I must respectfully disagree. With the greater number of "complications in the clockworks " the greater the probability of unresolved issues before the court. Additionally, I would side with 9 political partisans over potentially 50+ known politicians anyday. The greater the complexity, the greater possibly of failure. The KISS principle of engineering.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

There's no set number of justice positions mentioned in the Constitution. All it will take is one Congress (whether that Congress be liberal or conservative) to push to pack the court and then you have a never ending spigot. Each side will declare that SCOTUS needs more justices (to get them in the majority). This is a dangerous game no matter who plays it. There needs to be a number (nine seems good enough to me) and it needs to stay there.

Maybe the gop should beat the dems at their own game. Pack the court with 40+ conservative justices. The dems, if and when they regain the ability to pack the court would have to add more making it look rediculous.

Or, better yet, if the gop wins the white house and house and senate, they should pass an amendment limiting the number of seats. Maybe add a seat or two and fill them before passing the amendment, just to leave the stinger in. There should still be enough conservative states to ratify it.