• 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

Entirely true, but that only proves that Mitch is a bigger asshole for having outdone Reid.

As Reid, himself, said;

At the time of the Reid gambit we wrote that the “next GOP President should line up Federalist Society alumni for judicial nominations like planes waiting to take off at O’Hare International Airport.”

I’m guessing you had no problem with Reid’s actions at the time, did you? It’s only now that it might mean a result you don’t like do you think Repubs shouldn’t act the same.
 
As Reid, himself, said;

At the time of the Reid gambit we wrote that the “next GOP President should line up Federalist Society alumni for judicial nominations like planes waiting to take off at O’Hare International Airport.”

I’m guessing you had no problem with Reid’s actions at the time, did you? It’s only now that it might mean a result you don’t like do you think Repubs shouldn’t act the same.

oh but that's whataboutism, the democrats are liars or hypocrites but republicans must play by the rules the dems only want their opposition to follow.
 
Entirely true, but that only proves that Mitch is a bigger asshole for having outdone Reid.

No it proves that Mitch beat out Chuckie to doing it. Chunkie will get the honor of killing the filibuster.
 
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....

Lol, that is the irony. You would be right if there was a liberal majority on the bench that court packing would be found unconstitutional but a conservative majority of originialsts will not make that finding. The Dems will likely be swept to power the very next recession.
 
That is the inevitable outcome. The court will continue to grow through our lifetimes as the pendulum swings back and forth. SCOTUS will now be viewed as just another political tool.

Exactly, that is why I am not so worried about Donald Trump tilting the scales of justice to the hard right. First of all, the powers that be flips back and forth. Some presidencies over-reach and it becomes a guarantee that it will flip!

The Democrats have been leveling the playing field since their inception, no matter how hard the Republicans try and tilt everything in their favor. And one thing that is for sure- the Democrats will be in power once again- no matter what you think. I just know how history always repeats itself- and always for the same reasons.

Our whole judicial system is mostly based on having 12 jurors decide every decision.

So why not a dozen justices on the Supreme Court? Makes perfect sense to me.
 
Last edited:
It is now a virtual certainty the Democrats will pack the Supreme Court.



The author makes a pretty compelling argument.



https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/20...dr-roosevelt-new-deal-democrats-supreme-court

The GOP won control of SCOTUS but not in the kind of generational way where the court would reflect the political composition of the United States. They did it through abandoning a long held mutual agreement on the institution.

Mutual, eh?

Curious - who was the first person to advocate that SCOTUS nominations during a Presidential election cycle be left to whomever was elected?

I seem to recall it being referred to as the "Biden Rule", but can't recall which political party he was a member of....
 
Mutual, eh?

Curious - who was the first person to advocate that SCOTUS nominations during a Presidential election cycle be left to whomever was elected?

I seem to recall it being referred to as the "Biden Rule", but can't recall which political party he was a member of....

Whataboutism really is your bread and butter at this point.
 
Whataboutism really is your bread and butter at this point.

The claim is that the opinion that the President gets to pick a SCOTUS nominee during an election year was mutually held. Pointing out that, in fact, this was not the case (rather, that both sides had held that SCOTUS nominations which come available during a Presidential election cycle should be left to the next President) isn't whataboutism, but rather demonstrating that the claim is inaccurate.

For example, if you respond to criticisms of Obama's Keynesianism with "Well What About George W Bush's Keynesianism!", that could be whatabboutism. To respond to the claim "Only Democrats Have Recently Engaged In Keynesian Stimulus Measures" with "What about George W Bush's Keynesianism" isn't whataboutism, but rather dispelling the claim that a particular position is unique to one party.
 
The claim is that the opinion that the President gets to pick a SCOTUS nominee during an election year was mutually held. Pointing out that, in fact, this was not the case (rather, that both sides had held that SCOTUS nominations which come available during a Presidential election cycle should be left to the next President) isn't whataboutism, but rather demonstrating that the claim is inaccurate.

For example, if you respond to criticisms of Obama's Keynesianism with "Well What About George W Bush's Keynesianism!", that could be whatabboutism. To respond to the claim "Only Democrats Have Recently Engaged In Keynesian Stimulus Measures" with "What about George W Bush's Keynesianism" isn't whataboutism, but rather dispelling the claim that a particular position is unique to one party.

It is whataboutism because only one party acted on it. Biden is not the Democratic party as a whole and the Democrats may have opposed such actions had there been a vacancy and nominee. Only one party as a whole has acted on it, and it was one of the leaders of the party who put it into action. That is why your argument is nothing more than whataboutism. Or are conservatives now sharing the liberal perspective that words are equivalent to actions?
 
It is whataboutism because only one party acted on it.

Utter Balderdash. Both Parties pushed this idea when it benefited them.

Biden is not the Democratic party as a whole

Nor is Mitch McConnel the Republican as a whole. But he, just like Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer, are in their party's leadership, and claiming that their actions don't count when inconvenient is crap.
 
Utter Balderdash. Both Parties pushed this idea when it benefited them.



Nor is Mitch McConnel the Republican as a whole. But he, just like Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer, are in their party's leadership, and claiming that their actions don't count when inconvenient is crap.

No the bull**** of your whataboutism is somehow actions taken by the GOP or Trump are somehow less morally repugnant because some notable Democrat at one point supported something similar. That is fallacious bullcrap. I am by no means a goddamn Democrat, so that partisan idiocy matters as much to me as a fart in the wind but somehow you think that gives you some sort of high ground. Let's say Obama was Hitler. Arguing "Hitler separated children at the border" does not make Trump doing it any more just. Let's say Hillary was Hitler. Arguing that "Hitler was corrupt" does not make it anymore just when Trump is corrupt. Let's say Biden was Hitler. Arguing "Hitler first argued for delaying SCOTUS nominees" does not make it anymore just when McConnell does it. Wrong is wrong no matter who ****ing does it and all your whataboutism shows is a lack of a moral backbone because if the justification for everything is your opposition may have done it, then you have conceded YOU CAN NEVER BE ANY BETTER THAN THEM!
 
No the bull**** of your whataboutism

:yawn: if your only point is that of course both sides argued that a SCOTUS nomination that came available during a Presidential election year should wait until after the election....

:shrug: ...then you are agreeing with me. And disagreeing with the post I was correcting.
 
McConnell and the GOP violated the traditional SCOTUS appointment agreement.

If they decide to appoint/confirm a conservative judge before the midterms, then the Democrats would certainly have a credible casus belli to alter the SCOTUS composition when they are in the same majority position as the current GOP.

When the Democratic Party starts putting up candidate like Clinton and Sanders, it's time to take a sledgehammer (Trump) to them. We're all sick and tired of your socialist agenda, and it's time to stop it by any means necessary. I don't care what he says, I care what he does; and he's kicking the Democrats in the throat everyday.
 
It is now a virtual certainty the Democrats will pack the Supreme Court.

The true definition of "Packing the Supreme Court" is when your guys aren't appointed. Ironically, history shows when presidents made appointments on the basis of politics and hope of swaying the court, ensuing judgments from the court were mostly based on the Constitutional laws of the land, not political persuasion. Yes, the Supreme has pretty much ruled with the law, rarely making law, despite beliefs to the contrary.
 
Their options are to face a generation of having every progressive law overturned by the courts or to play like McConnell and change the rules of the game.

First, it's not progressive law. It's THE law. Donald Trump is a criminal. He is already guilty of ten times what Richard Nixon was. It is absolutely unconscionable that he be allowed to name a judge to the supreme court when he clearly has no respect whatsoever for the law. Personally, I would prefer a constitutional amendment that would allow for the impeachment of any judge nominated by a president who has himself been impeached. As well as a retroactive reversal of any decisions in which judges nominated by that president tipped the balance of the court.

Barring that, however, yes packing the court with 2-3 new judges would absolutely be fair game given the actions of the Republican party in recent history. Not only in the way in which they blocked Obama's choice but the way in which they blocked any judicial nominee whatsoever for a good chunk of Obama's presidency. It's no different than the unwritten rules of baseball. I don't like them, but the reality is McConnell intentionally threw at our guy so he can expect to get beaned the next time he's up to bat as well.
 
First, it's not progressive law. It's THE law. Donald Trump is a criminal. He is already guilty of ten times what Richard Nixon was. It is absolutely unconscionable that he be allowed to name a judge to the supreme court when he clearly has no respect whatsoever for the law. Personally, I would prefer a constitutional amendment that would allow for the impeachment of any judge nominated by a president who has himself been impeached. As well as a retroactive reversal of any decisions in which judges nominated by that president tipped the balance of the court.

Barring that, however, yes packing the court with 2-3 new judges would absolutely be fair game given the actions of the Republican party in recent history. Not only in the way in which they blocked Obama's choice but the way in which they blocked any judicial nominee whatsoever for a good chunk of Obama's presidency. It's no different than the unwritten rules of baseball. I don't like them, but the reality is McConnell intentionally threw at our guy so he can expect to get beaned the next time he's up to bat as well.

Thanks, some of the best parody humor I've read in a long time.
 
The true definition of "Packing the Supreme Court" is when your guys aren't appointed. Ironically, history shows when presidents made appointments on the basis of politics and hope of swaying the court, ensuing judgments from the court were mostly based on the Constitutional laws of the land, not political persuasion. Yes, the Supreme has pretty much ruled with the law, rarely making law, despite beliefs to the contrary.

Is that why corporations are now considered persons with rights equal to if not greater than individuals?
 
Is that why corporations are now considered persons with rights equal to if not greater than individuals?

No.

And such is a common misinterpretation of the court's decision, as well as long standing practice. The court, when it extended some individual rights of speech and personalty (not to be confused with personhood) such as property rights for taxation purposes, was acting within the scope of constitutionality. I.e. If we can tax an entity representative of a group of humans, we cannot ignore its voice as representative of that group of people. Point being, taxation without representation, a founding principle. In actuality, the daily practice, it is not superior, but an equalization as representative. Any appearance of superiority is merely the same as any group's typical magnification. Multiple voices are always louder than single voices, and being a single entity of law, does not diminish the volume of multiple voices speaking as one voice.
 
No.

And such is a common misinterpretation of the court's decision, as well as long standing practice. The court, when it extended some individual rights of speech and personalty (not to be confused with personhood) such as property rights for taxation purposes, was acting within the scope of constitutionality. I.e. If we can tax an entity representative of a group of humans, we cannot ignore its voice as representative of that group of people. Point being, taxation without representation, a founding principle. In actuality, the daily practice, it is not superior, but an equalization as representative. Any appearance of superiority is merely the same as any group's typical magnification. Multiple voices are always louder than single voices, and being a single entity of law, does not diminish the volume of multiple voices speaking as one voice.

Corporations tend to be autocratic, not democratic. A CEO or owner of a company does not represent the views of his employees or even necessarily care. There is an inherent act of subjugation in granting personhood to corporations. Lets call it what it is.
 
Corporations tend to be autocratic, not democratic. A CEO or owner of a company does not represent the views of his employees or even necessarily care. There is an inherent act of subjugation in granting personhood to corporations. Lets call it what it is.

The issue which first brought about this concept was about a corporate voice weighing in on a decision to give that same corporation further local real property tax abatements for local expansion. Being a beneficiary of a local tax break was and remains the decision against redaction of that corporate voice. Employees were never considered part of the corporate voice. Management and investors were defined as the participants of the corporate voice. However, job security and new job opportunities were certainly a concern for employees who likely did want the corporate investment to remain local and hopefully expand. Job security matters.

We often see local tax authorities putting tax abatement programs into effect for corporations as an inducement to expand within their jurisdictions, and later for maintaining and further expansion of local investment. Forcing redaction of the corporate voice as a taxpayer is the basis of the final decision. It is popular to criticize corporations as enemies of the people, Frank and Jesse James vs the evil railroads. Yet Frank and Jesse were thieves and murderers, the railroads making for highways where our waterways didn't travel, creating expansion of population, regional access to larger markets for farmers, cattlemen, shepherds, miners, loggers and so forth. I voted for Casey Jones.

I don't think you understand the difference between personhood and personalty for this concept recognized by the court. Personalty is what you own, inclusive of liabilities. Taxes are a liability. You are confusing worker's rights with the political rights of other legal entities when it is questions like taxation being addressed. Workers' rights are a distinct issue. Our nation was partially founded upon principles of personalty. No taxation without representation was a rallying cry. That is the constitutional issue that was addressed, not worker rights.

Let's get back to the issue raised by the OP, packing the court politically. We have sufficient evidence based on prior Scotus decisions, to know it fails. Lawyers will be lawyers, whether practicing in general practice or on the bench. They tend act within the framework of the law, not political emotions.
 
The issue which first brought about this concept was about a corporate voice weighing in on a decision to give that same corporation further local real property tax abatements for local expansion. Being a beneficiary of a local tax break was and remains the decision against redaction of that corporate voice. Employees were never considered part of the corporate voice. Management and investors were defined as the participants of the corporate voice. However, job security and new job opportunities were certainly a concern for employees who likely did want the corporate investment to remain local and hopefully expand. Job security matters.

We often see local tax authorities putting tax abatement programs into effect for corporations as an inducement to expand within their jurisdictions, and later for maintaining and further expansion of local investment. Forcing redaction of the corporate voice as a taxpayer is the basis of the final decision. It is popular to criticize corporations as enemies of the people, Frank and Jesse James vs the evil railroads. Yet Frank and Jesse were thieves and murderers, the railroads making for highways where our waterways didn't travel, creating expansion of population, regional access to larger markets for farmers, cattlemen, shepherds, miners, loggers and so forth. I voted for Casey Jones.

I don't think you understand the difference between personhood and personalty for this concept recognized by the court. Personalty is what you own, inclusive of liabilities. Taxes are a liability. You are confusing worker's rights with the political rights of other legal entities when it is questions like taxation being addressed. Workers' rights are a distinct issue. Our nation was partially founded upon principles of personalty. No taxation without representation was a rallying cry. That is the constitutional issue that was addressed, not worker rights.

Let's get back to the issue raised by the OP, packing the court politically. We have sufficient evidence based on prior Scotus decisions, to know it fails. Lawyers will be lawyers, whether practicing in general practice or on the bench. They tend act within the framework of the law, not political emotions.

I am talking about corporate personhood. For example a corporation having the right to freedom of religion.
 
I am talking about corporate personhood. For example a corporation having the right to freedom of religion.

I know what you were speaking of, but it is a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the court decision, limiting government interference with the voice from any lawful entity. Other than not for profits, I've never encountered a corporation needing freedom of religion, other than the worship of Mamon, money. Note it is states' legislation which requires religious institutions incorporate, for reasons of their fiduciary not for profit responsibilities, the IRS regulations do not demand corporate entity creation for exemption from taxation for religion tax exemption.
 
It is now a virtual certainty the Democrats will pack the Supreme Court.



The author makes a pretty compelling argument.



https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/20...dr-roosevelt-new-deal-democrats-supreme-court

The GOP won control of SCOTUS but not in the kind of generational way where the court would reflect the political composition of the United States. They did it through abandoning a long held mutual agreement on the institution. There is no political consequence for the Democrats to pack the court with liberals. Their options are to face a generation of having every progressive law overturned by the courts or to play like McConnell and change the rules of the game.
Didn't FDR try unsuccessfully to pack the court to add justices favorable to his New Deal programs? Seems like that would stand as a precedent against any effort to "pack" the court.
 
Back
Top Bottom