• 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!

Do you support packing the Supreme Court to alter its "lean"?

Do you support packing the Supreme Court to alter its "lean"?

  • Total voters
    68
Barnacle said:
Liberals have no scruples in altering anything in their favour; so, if the Supreme Court voices its leaning - which, by all accounts, it should not -, then I plead for a right-leaning Supreme Court.

Ruth Bader-Ginsburg should have kept her shriveld-up, old mouth shut when it came to Trump.
The Supreme Court's job is to check whether possible laws would be in conflict with our constitution ... it is not their job to voice an opinion on the president of the US of A.

Right-leaning Supreme Court, please ... for the next 30 years, at least.

Still waiting for Ginsburg to take her musty-smelling s*** and move her a*** New Zealand
... and I hope the loud-mouthed Sotomayor - "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," - follows her. (spit)
Click to expand...

That's rich coming from you.
 
Captain Adverse said:
No, I don't agree the SCOTUS needs to be "politically balanced."

That was attempted by Franklin Roosevelt, when he wanted to pack the Scotus with 15 or more Justices...to make things "even":

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roosevelt-announces-court-packing-plan

Instead, politics should never affect their decisions, and the Court should exercise Judicial restraint regardless of which Party the President who appointed them belongs to.

There would be no problem with a court of Nine Justices, or Seven Justices, etc. as long as the members of the Court avoided "judicial activism" and interpreted issues of Constitutional concern under the Plain Meaning rule, or at least the Legislative Intent rule, i.e. what did the Founder's mean when they argued for the Bill of Rights, and what did Congress mean when they argued for the added Amendments or other Federal law.

The ultimate test should be, how does this issue inhibit/limit Individual Liberty; and if must needs do so, what rational and most narrowly applied method would serve to address the issue while preserving the most Individual Liberty.
Click to expand...

I want to pack the court because I think the current court is a disaster for America. However, if we do pack the court nothing stops the next guy from packing it again unleashing a vicious cycle of revenge. Perhaps the best thing to do is deny life time appointments. Make them staggered to expire on Presidential election years, make it 3 terms, 18 years for instance. That would give the nation an opportunity to get new blood in there as we move through political cycles.
 
Nap said:
The SC shouldn't have a lean, they should judge the law as it is written. If laws need to be changed then that is the job of the legislature.
Click to expand...

But the court has never been impartial, it is filled with human beings handpicked by their politics since the whole thing started. Your point is moot, it will never happen and never has happened.
 
Harshaw said:
There have been suggestions cropping up, with some vigor of late, that Democrats should pack the Supreme Court the next time they have control of Congress and the White House.


This would entail adding Justices to the current 9, so that a Democratic President could "balance out" Trump's Court appointments.


Fordham University Law professor Jed Shugerman, for example, opined that they should create SIX new seats and abolish the filibuster altogether if that's what it takes to do it.


So, in other words, the suggestion is to reverse the presumed ideology of the Court by making the Court larger.


Do you agree with this approach -- altering the "lean" of the Court by giving the President of your party the ability to appoint more Justices who "lean" the way you prefer?


If so, please explain why.
Click to expand...

No. The SC should Not have a political lean of any sort, their job is the Constitution and ensuring that laws are Constitutional.
 
Last edited:
Vadinho said:
But the court has never been impartial, it is filled with human beings handpicked by their politics since the whole thing started. Your point is moot, it will never happen and never has happened.
Click to expand...

Your politics doesn't change what the law states. I don't care if a judge is a Communist, as long he judges based on what the law says rather than what he wished it would be then it doesn't matter what his politics are.
 
iliveonramen said:
Republicans have abandoned a lot of norms to get a conservative court. Its obvious why, they see demographics going against them and packing the court with younger conservative justices is their response.

I don’t think the Dems should pack the court unless the court becomes completely detached from the will of the people. If that happens, then yea, pack the court.
Click to expand...

The SC should be making rulings based on the will of the People. Good Grief, many of the People are ignorant, political sheep, or just plain idiots. Hence why the Founders gave the SC clear guidelines.
 
Casper said:
The SC should be making rulings based on the will of the People. Good Grief, many of the People are ignorant, political sheep, or just plain idiots. Hence why the Founders gave the SC clear guidelines.
Click to expand...

The founders never set the number of justices that should be appointed. The idea of judicial review is an implied power that resulted from a Supreme Court decision. What you are arguing is the importance of norms and traditition. It works both ways, when you start tossing away norms and how things are traditional done don’t be shocked when the other side does it.

The courts know the importance of norms. As long as they practice restraint this will never cone to pass. If they decide they’re duty is to stop a liberal congress and president from doing what they are actually elected to do, then you will prob see a packed court.
 
MovingPictures said:
And that is exactly what the Senate GOP majority did in order to pack the court in their favor - stop pretending you don't understand that.
Click to expand...

Did what? Created new seats on the court in order to accomplish this? I don't think so.

By the way, the court isn't "packed" in conservative favor. Gorsuch replaced a conservative. It has the same "balance" (such as there is any such thing) right now as it did when Scalia was on there. If Garland had been confirmed, it would have upset the "balance" in favor of the "liberals."

As for Kennedy retiring, that was Kennedy's call. The Republicans didn't bring that about.

Whatever you want to say about Garland, the Court is not "packed," and the Republicans didn't change the overall makeup of the Court to suit their purposes.

They shouldn't have blocked Obama's nomination, but they did. They shouldn't be using the nuclear option on SCOTUS candidates, but they are. And they shouldn't have admitted they were holding seats hostage for the next Republican president, but they did.

Its a two way street. If Republicans wanted to preserve the court at nine justices, they shouldn't done all of the things they've done. Now, they have absolutely no grounds for complaining when the Democrats do something they shouldn't do.


If the Democrats had openly stated they were going to hold seats hostage for their next president when Bush or Reagan were in office, you'd have a legitimate point to make. But they didn't. The Democrats respected the tradition of working with those presidents to find common ground to fill the vacancies.

You can't brake all the rules and then expect others to play by them when you're not in a position of strength anymore.
Click to expand...

Do you have a limiting principle for this? Or, any principle for it?

Remember, the Republicans actually could do this for themselves, you know. They could do it tomorrow. What principle would you cite to argue against them doing so?
 
Harshaw said:
As for Kennedy retiring, that was Kennedy's call. The Republicans didn't bring that about.
Click to expand...
And we didn't force Scalia to eat too many Big Mac's, so what's your point? You talk out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you want Republicans to be permitted to hold conservative seats hostage, but then you go back to 'the norm' of how the SCOTUS vacancies are lottery like when a swing justice retires.

So, is the SCOTUS a lottery system that each party has the right to benefit from via dumb luck, or isn't it? You can't have it both ways.

Whatever you want to say about Garland, the Court is not "packed," and the Republicans didn't change the overall makeup of the Court to suit their purposes.
Click to expand...
Oh stop.

They made a calculated gamble. Everyone knew two years ago that the chances of Kennedy retiring were high, and we all know that Ginsburg may not be long on the bench either. The GOP saw this as their chance to stack the court in their favor by holding any vacancies hostage while they have control of the Senate, then using the nuclear option to ram their nominees through.

If they had just played the game fair and worked on compromise to fill Scalia, they could have still had Kennedy's, and maybe even Ginsburg's seat. Instead they played the most rogue game in politics, and now you want the other side to play by the rules.

Do you have a limiting principle for this? Or, any principle for it?
Click to expand...
Either they reform the court system with term limits, or we expand the court just enough to balance away their dirty tricks.

Remember, the Republicans actually could do this for themselves, you know. They could do it tomorrow. What principle would you cite to argue against them doing so?
Click to expand...
Do it! They'd be doing us a big favor in selling it to the public, so we wouldn't have to.

If the right is going to disregard norms because they're not written into the constitution, then so can the Democrats.
 
I hit the wrong button-I oppose expanding the # of justices

FDR should have been impeached for threatening the Court.
 
Harshaw said:
The question of whether or not they would have the ability to do it is moot.

The question is whether or not they should.

Of course, you indicated that you are down with it, that they should set things up specifically so that the next Democratic President can turn the court into what he wants.

I find that curious, because you called that kind of thing a "dictatorship":



Would you support doing this if it were a Republican Congress, and a Republican President you don't like? (Obviously not.)
Click to expand...

My what a weaselly strawman you made. He neither said or indicated any such thing. You completely ignored what he said and replaced it with your lying strawman to argue against. Or did you think no one would notice your cheap tactic? :roll:
 
MovingPictures said:
And we didn't force Scalia to eat too many Big Mac's, so what's your point?
Click to expand...

The point is that the Republicans didn't do anything to put themselves in the position they are now.

You talk out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you want Republicans to be permitted to hold conservative seats hostage,
Click to expand...

I never said anything remotely like that. I merely said -- factually, and correctly -- that the court isn't "packed," as you said it is.

but then you go back to 'the norm' of how the SCOTUS vacancies are lottery like when a swing justice retires.

So, is the SCOTUS a lottery system that each party has the right to benefit from via dumb luck, or isn't it? You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

I never made either claim you're attributing to me here.


Oh stop.

They made a calculated gamble. Everyone knew two years ago that the chances of Kennedy retiring were high, and we all know that Ginsburg may not be long on the bench either. The GOP saw this as their chance to stack the court in their favor by holding any vacancies hostage while they have control of the Senate, then using the nuclear option to ram their nominees through.

If they had just played the game fair and worked on compromise to fill Scalia, they could have still had Kennedy's, and maybe even Ginsburg's seat. Instead they played the most rogue game in politics, and now you want the other side to play by the rules.
Click to expand...

This is rambling gobbledygook. There's not even anything coherent to respond to.


Either they reform the court system with term limits, or we expand the court just enough to balance away their dirty tricks.
Click to expand...

So, no, you don't actually have a limiting principle, or any principle. "Whatever it takes, however it's done."


Do it! They'd be doing us a big favor in selling it to the public, so we wouldn't have to.

If the right is going to disregard norms because they're not written into the constitution, then so can the Democrats.
Click to expand...

They of course are not going to, nor did I claim they would or they should. I'm sure, though, if they announced they were going to, you would not actually have this flippant attitude toward it.

Anyway, imagine this world you have in mind, where each party plays tit-for-tat messing with the courts. The Democrats pack the court, then the Republicans come along behind them and pack it again.

This kind of political football will diminish the relative power of the courts, rendering them pretty much absurd, and the political branches will have re-asserted themselves in primacy over the courts.

Considering how many of the social victories of the Left over the past 70 years have been delivered by the courts rather than by legislation, are you sure that's what you want? That's the end game of what you're arguing for.
 
Moot said:
My what a weaselly strawman you made. He neither said or indicated any such thing. You completely ignored what he said and replaced it with your lying strawman to argue against. Or did you think no one would notice your cheap tactic? :roll:
Click to expand...

Learn to read, Moot.

Bye now.
 
Harshaw said:
There have been suggestions cropping up, with some vigor of late, that Democrats should pack the Supreme Court the next time they have control of Congress and the White House.


This would entail adding Justices to the current 9, so that a Democratic President could "balance out" Trump's Court appointments.


Fordham University Law professor Jed Shugerman, for example, opined that they should create SIX new seats and abolish the filibuster altogether if that's what it takes to do it.


So, in other words, the suggestion is to reverse the presumed ideology of the Court by making the Court larger.


Do you agree with this approach -- altering the "lean" of the Court by giving the President of your party the ability to appoint more Justices who "lean" the way you prefer?


If so, please explain why.
Click to expand...

I'd rather not, but considering the fact that Mitch McConnell and his brood have made it clear that he'll stop at nothing to force HIS agenda/i.e., the agenda of the radical Right, what the Hell, guess we need to be willing to "stop at nothing" to fight back.
If that means adding some justices, so be it. As others have suggested, what Mitch did was entirely legal.
So is adding more justices.

But I'd much rather we just allow the democratic process to proceed normally with the current nine seats, with each president having the opportunity to do what any president does, which includes putting justices on the bench when the need arises...if only it really was possible.
Clearly, it's not.

I'd much rather leave the number where it is and not have to resort to drastic countermeasures but as many would agree, the Republican Party has declared war on the two party system.
I said the following in Post #9 in another thread, but it applies here as well:

I've always been taught that most people, even Republicans, tend to believe in patriotic things like the rule of law, the democratic process, and doing whatever is best for the country as a whole, even when not all of it aligns with a specific political agenda. How foolish of me. It's fairly obvious that no such values exist in the Republican leadership of today, and certainly not in this current administration.
To suggest otherwise is absurd to the point of screaming into a towel with howling laughter.

So what is it that disabused me of that quaint notion?
Welp, just for starters...
After the 2010 census the efforts of gerrymandering permanent control contrary to the wishes of voters was extreme. Over the last decade the voter ID laws were designed to suppress minority votes. McConnell's extreme efforts to thwart every Obama initiative despite popularity and the demonstrated issues and then the packing of the judicial branch with unqualified ideologues, culminating with the refusal to seat Merrick Garland.

Now we have the spectacle of the Trump administration, and their anti-democratic cross-pollinations which are, literally, too many to catalogue.
Click to expand...
 
Captain Adverse said:
Instead, politics should never affect their decisions, and the Court should exercise Judicial restraint regardless of which Party the President who appointed them belongs to.
Click to expand...

But it is crystal clear that they do let politics affect their decisions, and it is crystal clear that the notion has been completely and utterly abandoned by Mitch McConnell, the entire Republican Party and President Trump, who has never even possessed a rudimentary understanding of the purpose and function of the SCOTUS to begin with, much to the delight of folks like Mitch et al.
 
Harshaw said:
There have been suggestions cropping up, with some vigor of late, that Democrats should pack the Supreme Court the next time they have control of Congress and the White House.


This would entail adding Justices to the current 9, so that a Democratic President could "balance out" Trump's Court appointments.


Fordham University Law professor Jed Shugerman, for example, opined that they should create SIX new seats and abolish the filibuster altogether if that's what it takes to do it.


So, in other words, the suggestion is to reverse the presumed ideology of the Court by making the Court larger.


Do you agree with this approach -- altering the "lean" of the Court by giving the President of your party the ability to appoint more Justices who "lean" the way you prefer?


If so, please explain why.
Click to expand...

That ain't never gonna happen.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
If FDR could not do it because the country would not allow it who in their right mind thinks that these Modern Bungling D's could do it without finishing the job of breaking this once great nation?
Click to expand...

Historically, it's been done at least three times in US history and we're still a great nation.
 
MovingPictures said:
Its a two way street. If Republicans wanted to preserve the court at nine justices, they shouldn't done all of the things they've done. Now, they have absolutely no grounds for complaining when the Democrats do something they shouldn't do.
Click to expand...

This, right here ^^^ :applaud

Sorry Repukes, you decided it was okay to kick us while we were down, now we should have every right to smack the crap out of you so hard you'll never dream of pulling that stunt ever again, and keep smacking you until your miserable excuse for a political party is comatose.

We didn't start the fire...
 
Harshaw said:
The point is that the Republicans didn't do anything to put themselves in the position they are now.
Click to expand...
Uh, are you jacking with me, or are you serious? McConnell withheld the vacancy from Scalia, and his entire party made clear that no Democrat would appoint anyone to the court.


I never said anything remotely like that. I merely said -- factually, and correctly -- that the court isn't "packed," as you said it is.
Click to expand...
Its packed in the sense that one party has used corrupt measures in order to grab partisan control of the court.

I never made either claim you're attributing to me here.
Click to expand...
Yes, you did.

You made excuses for the games the GOP played in preventing the Democrats from benefiting from the luck of Scalia's seat being open - as if they had an obligation to replace a conservative with a conservative. But then when it comes to Kennedy's retirement, its all back to luck again when the GOP benefits from it.

This is rambling gobbledygook. There's not even anything coherent to respond to.
Click to expand...
The feeling is mutual in regards to your posts.

So, no, you don't actually have a limiting principle, or any principle. "Whatever it takes, however it's done."
Click to expand...
I can only conclude at this point that you have either horrible reading comprehension, or you're just trolling, as I just gave a principle.


Anyway, imagine this world you have in mind, where each party plays tit-for-tat messing with the courts. The Democrats pack the court, then the Republicans come along behind them and pack it again.

This kind of political football will diminish the relative power of the courts, rendering them pretty much absurd, and the political branches will have re-asserted themselves in primacy over the courts.

Considering how many of the social victories of the Left over the past 70 years have been delivered by the courts rather than by legislation, are you sure that's what you want? That's the end game of what you're arguing for.
Click to expand...
Yeah, yeah.

Look, your side are the ones that started these games. Instead of waiting their turn to win the lottery like every period before, they abused their majority status to prevent their opponents from benefiting from it when they won. Then after Reid used the nuclear option on ONE low court judge after years and years of filibustering by McConnell, the nuclear option is used on everything, and every Senate and House rule for court appointments and bills is flushed down the toilet.

Yeah, the right doesn't get to use political nukes and then demand that others not use their own nuclear weapons once they have a position power.
 
Harshaw said:
There have been suggestions cropping up, with some vigor of late, that Democrats should pack the Supreme Court the next time they have control of Congress and the White House.


This would entail adding Justices to the current 9, so that a Democratic President could "balance out" Trump's Court appointments.


Fordham University Law professor Jed Shugerman, for example, opined that they should create SIX new seats and abolish the filibuster altogether if that's what it takes to do it.


So, in other words, the suggestion is to reverse the presumed ideology of the Court by making the Court larger.


Do you agree with this approach -- altering the "lean" of the Court by giving the President of your party the ability to appoint more Justices who "lean" the way you prefer?


If so, please explain why.
Click to expand...

So democrats add 6 the next time tables are reversed republicans add 9. The court will be more of a joke than it is now. The B.S. of the U.S. being a nation of laws not not men can be thrown in the trash.

Perhaps it is best to rip off a band-aid and acknowledge we are no better than the banana republics we laugh at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom