• 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

Praxas said:
Your assuming of course the increase in SCOTUS judges would be to balance the court and not imbalance it. There is nothing to say the court couldn't be further imbalanced by this.
Click to expand...



Damn you! How dare you oppose me with reason and logic!?!?

Seriously though....

You are correct. It may just make it worse.
 
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...
Does that mean you would support it if Trump decides to do that right now?
Ya thought not
 
Vidi said:
Sorry Grok that’s not how that went down.

But let’s pretend it did for a second. Does that forgive what McConnell did? Does that somehow make it ok? If both sides are corrupt, does that mean no one is corrupt?

I’m new, so you don’t know me yet. Sure I fall to the left side of the aisle, but if the left is wrong, I’ll say so. LOUDLY. And if the Right is right? I’ll say so as well.

What McConnell did was wrong. Brilliant political move, but just wrong.

If the Democrats were talking about expanding the Supreme Court because it was right heavy through legitimate means, I would oppose the expansion.
Click to expand...


Its always easier when the shoe is on the other foot.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
I accept your clarification, but I find it wanting in several respects. What McConnell did was to toss a chuck of long standing tradition/decorum for partisan gain. There is obviously no rule saying how quickly a judge must be replaced following a death on the court.

I do remember the tit-for-tat with Reed that preceded that move McConnell made.

I don't agree with McConnell's actions during the Obama presidency (or Reeds, but Reed was responding to McConnell blocking things), and I would not approve of adding justices to the court for any purpose. Dead judges should be replaced, asap. That's a crap shoot, as it should be. I also think the for-life appointments need to go, personally.
Click to expand...

What do you "find wanting"? I said it was a naked political, partisan move. I don't disagree with anything you said here.
 
Grokmaster said:
It wasn't "cheating", anymore than the democrats in 2007 were.
Click to expand...

Obama's first appointment was a vacancy that came up under his term.
 
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...

Translation: 2020 Democrats talk of stacking the deck in their favor.

Buncha sore losers.
 
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...

you feel that way because it has been imbalanced through trickery and scumbaggery. as for expanding the court, though, i'm not sure that i support it.
 
jnug said:
Oh it might very well happen...as long as it happens for the right reasons and under the right conditions. The whole process has been turned on its head by Senatorial Leadership fiat and that is flat wrong. Much as to be fixed first.
Click to expand...

As I said, fantasy.
 
Roadvirus said:
Translation: 2020 Democrats talk of stacking the deck in their favor.

Buncha sore losers.
Click to expand...

Republicans have been stacking the deck in their favor a lot and you don't give two ****s about it. Now you're gonna get all mad that Democrats talk about rebalancing things :lamo
 
Deuce said:
Obama's first appointment was a vacancy that came up under his term.
Click to expand...

And was not remotely relevant to the Senate Dems declaration that no more Bush judges would be seated, if an opening did come up...in JANUARY, 2007.
 
Grokmaster said:
And was not remotely relevant to the Senate Dems declaration that no more Bush judges would be seated, if an opening did come up...in JANUARY, 2007.
Click to expand...

So you're mad that Democrats hypothetical maybe possibly would have blocked an appointment to a vacancy that never actually happened.

And you're not mad that Republicans actually did that.

Got it!
 
Grokmaster said:
And was not remotely relevant to the Senate Dems declaration that no more Bush judges would be seated, if an opening did come up...in JANUARY, 2007.
Click to expand...

You are extrapolating what you want to believe from thin air. The dems never refused to process a SC nomination during the final year of the term of the sitting President....NEVER. That is a GOP first. If you had an example of a SC Justice that was refused process by Senate Democrats now ya' got something. Short of that, ya' got nothing as usual.
 
Vidi said:
You’re correct. I miscounted. My apologies.


So as long as it shifted the court to conservative, McConnels blocking of a lawfully elected sitting President is ok?
Click to expand...

See what I've said about McConnell elsewhere in this thread.

But it in fact didn't shift the court to "conservative"; if you count Gorsuch as a "conservative," then he replaced a conservative. The "balance" remained the same.
 
Harshaw said:
See what I've said about McConnell elsewhere in this thread.

But it in fact didn't shift the court to "conservative"; if you count Gorsuch as a "conservative," then he replaced a conservative. The "balance" remained the same.
Click to expand...

I disagree

Kennedy was a moderate replaced by another far right conservative.

You were correct however in that there wouldn’t have been a balance either way. My hasty math got the better of me.
 
Vidi said:
I disagree

Kennedy was a moderate replaced by another far right conservative.
Click to expand...

Even if one accepts Kavanaugh as a "far right conservative," that didn't happen until years later and had nothing to do with McConnell "blocking" Garland.
 
While I don't have anything against any action that balances out McConnell's theft of Obama's appointment in principle, I'm admittedly confused what stops Republicans from just adding more seats of their own.

So for all practical considerations, what prevents this tactic from resulting in a hundred Supreme Court Justices?
 
Last edited:
veritas1 said:
It's a naked power grab. If the left wants to appoint justices, let them win more elections.
Click to expand...

If they were allowed to appoint justices after winning elections, this wouldn't be an issue. The pattern of "win the presidency, get to fill SCOTUS vacancies" has been broken. Pandora's box is now open.
 
Harshaw said:
Even if one accepts Kavanaugh as a "far right conservative," that didn't happen until years later and had nothing to do with McConnell "blocking" Garland.
Click to expand...

Of course it does.

You’re not mentioning Gorsuch.

Hypothetical, let’s say McConnell brings Garland in for confirmation and he gets through. Now Trump is left with just a single nomination ( up to today...I think he’s going to get another before 2020. Ginsberg isn’t looking so good. )

Does Trump nominate Kavanaugh or Gorusch? Does it matter? One or the other but definitely not BOTH.

All because Mitch McConnell refused the will of the people.

What’s that mean? Elections have consequences. Obama won the 2012 election. He was elected for FOUR YEARS, not three.

Again, McConnell pulled a brilliant political maneuver, but it was absolute bull.
 
Vidi said:
Of course it does.

You’re not mentioning Gorsuch.
Click to expand...

I definitely did:

Harshaw said:
See what I've said about McConnell elsewhere in this thread.

But it in fact didn't shift the court to "conservative"; if you count Gorsuch as a "conservative," then he replaced a conservative. The "balance" remained the same.
Click to expand...


Hypothetical, let’s say McConnell brings Garland in for confirmation and he gets through. Now Trump is left with just a single nomination ( up to today...I think he’s going to get another before 2020. Ginsberg isn’t looking so good. )

Does Trump nominate Kavanaugh or Gorusch? Does it matter? One or the other but definitely not BOTH.

All because Mitch McConnell refused the will of the people.

What’s that mean? Elections have consequences. Obama won the 2012 election. He was elected for FOUR YEARS, not three.

Again, McConnell pulled a brilliant political maneuver, but it was absolute bull.
Click to expand...

McConnell had no idea who was going retire or die next, nor did anyone else. It could have just as easily been one of the "conservatives."

The Kavanaugh nomination happened in the normal course of events. So, that nomination has nothing to do with the maneuver re: Garland.
 
Cardinal said:
While I don't have anything against any action that balances out McConnell's theft of Obama's appointment in principle, I'm admittedly confused what would stop Republicans from just adding additional seats of their own.

So for all practical considerations, what prevents this tactic from resulting in a hundred Supreme Court Justices?
Click to expand...


Absolutely nothing.

That’s another reason it’s a terrible idea.

Let’s pretend that the left takes over in 2020. Presidency, Senate and House.

Then they start expanding SCOTUS.

The right will eventually be in power again, and now the precedent is set.

Its why there are Republicans trying to block Trumps national emergency declaration. Sooner or later, the Democrats are going to be in power again. And when they are, what’s to stop them from declaring a national emergency on Gun violence? Or health care?
 
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...

I agree with you that McConnell should be condemned for not allowing Garland's nomination to come to a vote... but I don't think the blame lies entirely with him. President Obama - with a little will and effort - could have gotten Garland a recess appointment by having Senator Reid make a point of order during a pro forma session that a quorum wasn't present. If the Republicans couldn't muster a quorum within 10 calendar days (which would have been neigh on impossible with so many of them running for re-election), then the President would have been entirely within his rights to give Judge Garland - and every other judicial nominee the Republicans had been holding up - a recess appointment. That he didn't choose to avail himself of this option is on him, not McConnell.
 
Harshaw said:
I definitely did:






McConnell had no idea who was going retire or die next, nor did anyone else. It could have just as easily been one of the "conservatives."

The Kavanaugh nomination happened in the normal course of events. So, that nomination has nothing to do with the maneuver re: Garland.
Click to expand...

You’re missing my point. I’ve already conceded the “balance” point.

If the voters had been respected Trump would have only had one nomination thus far.


And I for one heard a great deal of discussion long before the McConnell maneuver, that the 2016 election would decide not just the Presidency but at least one maybe even two SCOTUS seats. Everyone expected Ginsberg to retire.
 
Cordelier said:
I agree with you that McConnell should be condemned for not allowing Garland's nomination to come to a vote... but I don't think the blame lies entirely with him. President Obama - with a little will and effort - could have gotten Garland a recess appointment by having Senator Reid make a point of order during a pro forma session that a quorum wasn't present. If the Republicans couldn't muster a quorum within 10 calendar days (which would have been neigh on impossible with so many of them running for re-election), then the President would have been entirely within his rights to give Judge Garland - and every other judicial nominee the Republicans had been holding up - a recess appointment. That he didn't choose to avail himself of this option is on him, not McConnell.
Click to expand...

Actually on pain of being steamrolled on a SC Justice and Judgeships, the GOP would have mustered a quorum over a 10 day period...elections or no. It just is not that easy.
 
Harshaw said:
I definitely did:






McConnell had no idea who was going retire or die next, nor did anyone else. It could have just as easily been one of the "conservatives."

The Kavanaugh nomination happened in the normal course of events. So, that nomination has nothing to do with the maneuver re: Garland.
Click to expand...


Oops you did mention him.

My apologies
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom