• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Finally: Talk of expanding the Supreme Court

AtlantaAdonis

AtlantaAdonis

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
2,383
Reaction score
717
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court - POLITICO

Good. The Supreme Cult's power has to be cut down.

And I know right wingers and "kawnstitutional" purists will try and compare this to the attempt to circumvent separation of powers by an emergency declaration, but it needs to be said there is a different between doing it for the sake of rights and social justice versus doing it for racist and bigoted policies.

It's good to see Democrats taking the kid gloves off to fight a regressive agenda.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court - POLITICO

Good. The Supreme Cult's power has to be cut down.

And I know right wingers and "kawnstitutional" purists will try and compare this to the attempt to circumvent separation of powers by an emergency declaration, but it needs to be said there is a different between doing it for the sake of rights and social justice versus doing it for racist and bigoted policies.

It's good to see Democrats taking the kid gloves off to fight a regressive agenda.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind seeing rational arguments for doing so and not doing so, but I would have no problems, zero, w/ending the lifetime tenure the justices receive.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court - POLITICO

Good. The Supreme Cult's power has to be cut down.

And I know right wingers and "kawnstitutional" purists will try and compare this to the attempt to circumvent separation of powers by an emergency declaration, but it needs to be said there is a different between doing it for the sake of rights and social justice versus doing it for racist and bigoted policies.

It's good to see Democrats taking the kid gloves off to fight a regressive agenda.
Click to expand...

I would oppose this if McConnell hasn’t blocked the last president from putting someone on the court when there was a vacancy.

Now I feel like the court has been imbalanced through trickery and maybe expanding the court will bring back the balance
 
I would expand the court for the sole purpose of diluting the power a bit, so that major decisions affecting millions of people don't come down to how one regressive dip**** feels that particular day.
 
Vidi said:
I would oppose this if McConnell hasn’t blocked the last president from putting someone on the court when there was a vacancy.

Now I feel like the court has been imbalanced through trickery and maybe expanding the court will bring back the balance
Click to expand...

Like Schumer exhorting the Democrat Senate to do the same in 2007? MORE THAN 19 months before the POTUS election?
 
Grokmaster said:
Like Schumer exhorting the Democrat Senate to do the same in 2007? MORE THAN 19 months before the POTUS election?
Click to expand...

Um, what? That seat got filled. By Bush.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court - POLITICO

Good. The Supreme Cult's power has to be cut down.

And I know right wingers and "kawnstitutional" purists will try and compare this to the attempt to circumvent separation of powers by an emergency declaration, but it needs to be said there is a different between doing it for the sake of rights and social justice versus doing it for racist and bigoted policies.

It's good to see Democrats taking the kid gloves off to fight a regressive agenda.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the Dems are not powerful enough to get this done. They should have thought about doing this back in 2009 instead of ****ing the country over with Obamacare.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court - POLITICO

Good. The Supreme Cult's power has to be cut down.

And I know right wingers and "kawnstitutional" purists will try and compare this to the attempt to circumvent separation of powers by an emergency declaration, but it needs to be said there is a different between doing it for the sake of rights and social justice versus doing it for racist and bigoted policies.

It's good to see Democrats taking the kid gloves off to fight a regressive agenda.
Click to expand...

Only you would look at a proposal to expand the Supreme Court and conclude that it would "cut down" the Court's "power."

Never mind that you think opposing a nakedly political move by Congress and the President to alter the composition of the Supreme Court would constitute an "attempt to circumvent separation of powers."
 
Harshaw said:
Only you would look at a proposal to expand the Supreme Court and conclude that it would "cut down" the Court's "power."
Click to expand...

It would dilute the power of any individual person on the court, reducing the impact of any specific person or nomination.

It does not increase or decrease the scope of the court itself.
 
It's a naked power grab. If the left wants to appoint justices, let them win more elections.
 
Deuce said:
It would dilute the power of any individual person on the court, reducing the impact of any specific person or nomination.

It does not increase or decrease the scope of the court itself.
Click to expand...

You should be telling that to the OP, not me.
 
veritas1 said:
It's a naked power grab. If the left wants to appoint justices, let them win more elections.
Click to expand...

It's a response to McConnell's naked power grab. Deal with it.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court - POLITICO

Good. The Supreme Cult's power has to be cut down.

And I know right wingers and "kawnstitutional" purists will try and compare this to the attempt to circumvent separation of powers by an emergency declaration, but it needs to be said there is a different between doing it for the sake of rights and social justice versus doing it for racist and bigoted policies.

It's good to see Democrats taking the kid gloves off to fight a regressive agenda.
Click to expand...

As long as it's a UNEVEN NUMBER. Isn't just up to the House. It requires the SENATE to PASS IT, and the President to sign it.


Tell the House Politburo...GOOD LUCK WITH THAT....

More justices for Trump to seat.
 
Harshaw said:
You should be telling that to the OP, not me.
Click to expand...

You're the one who has a problem with one possible interpretation of what he said, not me.
 
Deuce said:
You're the one who has a problem with one possible interpretation of what he said, not me.
Click to expand...

You have reading problems. But that's not new.
 
Harshaw said:
You have reading problems. But that's not new.
Click to expand...

No, I think you have an understanding problem. When that particular poster says "Supreme Cult," he means the conservatives on the court. He wants to take down the conservative wing of the supreme court.
 
Vidi said:
I would oppose this if McConnell hasn’t blocked the last president from putting someone on the court when there was a vacancy.
Click to expand...

The ONLY reason this is valid is BECAUSE of what McConnell did.
If only he HADN'T.
But it's too late, he "went there" and the only response is to respond with an equal and opposite force.
And yes, an end to lifetime tenure is now necessary, because appointing a Supreme Court Justice is now forever weaponized, thanks to the actions of Mitch McConnell.
 
Deuce said:
No, I think you have an understanding problem. When that particular poster says "Supreme Cult," he means the conservatives on the court. He wants to take down the conservative wing of the supreme court.
Click to expand...

You go right ahead and make up whatever you need to. I'll leave you to it.
 
In any case, if anyone's behind this idea claiming it's because you want "balance," but are angry because a liberal judge -- Garland -- didn't replace a conservative Justice -- Scalia -- and thus tilting the Court liberal, you're not fooling anyone. It's not "balance" you want. It's a liberal court.
 
Harshaw said:
Only you would look at a proposal to expand the Supreme Court and conclude that it would "cut down" the Court's "power."

Never mind that you think opposing a nakedly political move by Congress and the President to alter the composition of the Supreme Court would constitute an "attempt to circumvent separation of powers."
Click to expand...

Ummm, Merrick Garland???:mrgreen::lamo
 
Harshaw said:
You go right ahead and make up whatever you need to. I'll leave you to it.
Click to expand...

I've seen enough of that guy's posts to know. :shrug:
 
Harshaw said:
In any case, if anyone's behind this idea claiming it's because you want "balance," but are angry because a liberal judge -- Garland -- didn't replace a conservative Justice -- Scalia -- and thus tilting the Court liberal, you're not fooling anyone. It's not "balance" you want. It's a liberal court.
Click to expand...

I wanted Obama to appoint a judge like the constitution says he should. The power grab was 100% on Republicans, who blocked any and all nominations from coming to a vote.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Ummm, Merrick Garland???:mrgreen::lamo
Click to expand...

What McConnell did was a nakedly political move.

But it was also 1) an intended exercise of separation of powers, and 2) didn't alter the composition of the court; it was entirely within the existing structure.

So, while a partisan move, there's no comparison on the terms I stated for the purposes I stated it.
 
Deuce said:
I wanted Obama to appoint a judge like the constitution says he should. The power grab was 100% on Republicans, who blocked any and all nominations from coming to a vote.
Click to expand...

Are you in favor of these court-packing proposals? If so, which, and why?
 
Harshaw said:
Are you in favor of these court-packing proposals? If so, which, and why?
Click to expand...

Yes. When the other team is cheating, you can't just sit there and let them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom