• 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!

Packing the Supreme Court

Tennyson said:
I explained it. Federalism will not solve gerrymandering. Federalism will solve the national division caused by gerrymandering because it is no one's business how a state handles their districting other than a state. Federal
keeps busybody's noses out of someone else's business and keeps gerrymandering a state use rather than a national issue, thus no more division. That is how federalism works.
Click to expand...

Here was your previous challenge to me

Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post

Pick any five issues that are dividing the country and I will demonstrate why federalism would eliminate the problems.
Click to expand...

Now you admit that federalism will not solve gerrymandering.

You lose and you make an excellent witness for me. Thank you.
 
haymarket said:
Here was your previous challenge to me



Now you admit that federalism will not solve gerrymandering.

You lose and you make an excellent witness for me. Thank you.
Click to expand...

I never stated that federalism would solve gerrymandering. I said that federalism would solve the problem of divisiveness.
 
CriticalThought said:
He has no reason to do so at this point since SCOTUS is already under right wing control. I imagine as soon as the next recession hits and the Democrats retake the House, Senate, and Presidency they will increase the number of SCOTUS seats from 9 to 11 and appoint two liberals to shift the balance. They are practically justified in doing so and the political consequences of not doing it, far outweigh any consequences they face from doing it. Trump also cannot help himself. He will appoint someone who is far to the ideological right of Kennedy. If he picked someone as moderate and respectful of precedent as Kennedy then I imagine the left might be leary of packing the court, but Trump will pick someone very young who will push a hard right agenda. I think McConnell and Trump have ensured the demise of any respect Americans will have for the authority of the courts.
Click to expand...

I agree but I do not think the current leaders of the Democratic Party have the stomach for it. I can see future new leaders up to it though especially if the courts go right in a big way. Our kids simply do not want to live in a theocracy run by oligarchs. Personally, I would move it to 11 at the first opportunity. The next Republican majority would then move it to 13. We could do this for decades for all I care. There is nothing right about 9 judges that is not as right for 99 judges.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
of course also a court challenge can be filed against court packing legislation and in a 5-4 decision court packing will be ruled unconstitutional.

Then it will be prior precendent and democrats who care so deeply now about Stare Decicis will have no choice but to accept it.

Also when are democrats going to pack the court? even if they get congress in 2018 Trump will still be in charge of nominations, and the GOP will probably keep the senate so any legislation... like for all intents and purposes this needs a democratic super majority plus presidency to work, I mean and if republican leaning states which outnumber democratic leaning states by a good margin now see this as a problem they can just call a constitutional convention and cut a democratic congress out of the decision altogether, this is a bad idea because it requires way too much political capital to pull off, and pull off before a backlash is organized against it.

I mean seriously, if that's the game we're playing the republicans could simply pass legislation to cut the court by eliminating all seats of judges over 78....
Click to expand...

If they did it, it would not be until after 2020 (or later, if Trump did manage to win that election). They would ensure that they had a Democrat in office who would be the one making the nominations to the Court.

Also, while currently the majority of states may be led by Republicans, there are still 14 states that are controlled by Democrats. That is cutting it really close in such an attempt, especially when it would not be for at least another 2+ years til it would even be suggested, and by then, several of those Republican controlled state legislatures could flip to Dems and/or Independents. I'd say it is pretty good odds that at least 2 of those states would flip to Dem control this year. That would mean that Republicans would not have the necessary votes there to pass your proposed Amendment through the Constitutional Convention process. They cannot simply leave out those states that are not run by GOPs.
 
Getting rid of the Supreme or decreasing its powers will only destroy the federal government. Whether the justices lean conservative or liberal or practice judicial restraint more than other years, there is no clear benefit in getting rid of the Court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom