• 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
Harshaw

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,845
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
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.
 
Unfortunately, SCOTUS has been politicized and bastardized and the mere fact that "lean" matter to so many is proof of that.d
I also hate that this whole nomination will be revolving around a single issue: abortion.
 
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, 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":

On February 5, 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt announces a controversial plan to expand the Supreme Court to as many as 15 judges, allegedly to make it more efficient. Critics immediately charged that Roosevelt was trying to “pack” the court and thus neutralize Supreme Court justices hostile to his New Deal.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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...

We are already the weakest we have been since the civil war, that there would break the country for sure, only the grossly irresponsible would even consider another attempt at packing the court like FDR tried to do.
 
Last edited:
When a leftie is potus, the SC picks are lefties....when a republican is potus, we get a more balanced jurist...look at kennedy and Roberts...kennedy had the chance to kill roe. Roberts had the chance to kill barrycare...they each disappointed the hell out of me.
Who was the last leftie on the SC to NOT vote as a leftie on anything?
 
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...

FDR threatened to do the very same thing and pack the SCOTUS if the then sitting Justices ruled against him in his power grab by the Executive Branch in his expansion of "The Great Society." To prevent that, the SCOTUS capitulated and ruled in favor of FDR on the majority of his (what I consider) unconstitutional power grabs and programs.

I don't agree with what FDR threatened to do, and I wouldn't be in favor of it occurring now, even if it would be positive to what I agree with. Why? Because we are a country of laws and not men. Men (and women) are subject to emotional subjectivity. The law is not, or at least should not be. It takes a difference of opinions to come to the truth, because somewhere in between the differing opinions is where the truth normally lies.
 
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...
The problem is that the GOP broke all of the norms and unspoken rules to get the current lean.

When there was a vacancy on the court under Obama, they held the vacancy hostage and admitted they would not allow Clinton to appoint anyone to the court should she win the presidency. The Democrats played no such games under Reagan, Bush, or Dubya.

The Democrats have every right to expand the court to cancel out the seat the GOP played hardball to get.
 
Last edited:
MovingPictures said:
The problem is that the GOP broke all of the norms and unspoken rules to get the current lean.

When there was a vacancy on the court under Obama, they held the vacancy hostage and admitted they would not allow Clinton to appoint anyone to the court should she win the presidency. The Democrats played no such games under Reagan, Bush, or Dubya.

The Democrats have every right to expand the court to cancel out the seat the GOP played hardball to get.
Click to expand...

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":

MovingPictures said:
Well, lemme see.

A dictatorship is when a president acts without consequence and is above the law.

Like the current one.
Click to expand...

Would you support doing this if it were a Republican Congress, and a Republican President you don't like? (Obviously not.)
 
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?
 
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...
As a general rule/concept, no. But I do feel as if Republicans essentially, for lack of a better term, "cheated" President Obama of being able to fill an open Supreme Court seat for no real reason other than spite. I think that is 100% wrong and think it is a wrong which should be righted. Would I support expanding Supreme Court to right the wrong? Probably not, for a whole host of reasons. But I do think Republicans were completely in the wrong for what they did in 2016 and I would like to see that fixed, regardless of any political leanings.

I also think Democrats are just flailing at this point. Even the idea of waiting until after midterms to approve a new Justice seems like wishing, as most indications at this point suggest Republicans will hold the Senate.
 
No.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Re: Do you support packing the Supreme Court to alter its "lean"?

Slyfox696 said:
I also think Democrats are just flailing at this point. Even the idea of waiting until after midterms to approve a new Justice seems like wishing, as most indications at this point suggest Republicans will hold the Senate.
Click to expand...

They are just pissed at the moment and haven't figured out a way to maneuver through the situation and what to do after it. We are still at the kicking and screaming stage.


Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Re: Do you support packing the Supreme Court to alter its "lean"?

I voted yes for one reason,Obama 's qualified pick was blocked by Mitch McConnell.
Now that things are reversed Mitch McConnell wants to rush thru the Republican Pick.
This is not how this republic was built.
 
Slyfox696 said:
As a general rule/concept, no. But I do feel as if Republicans essentially, for lack of a better term, "cheated" President Obama of being able to fill an open Supreme Court seat for no real reason other than spite. I think that is 100% wrong and think it is a wrong which should be righted. Would I support expanding Supreme Court to right the wrong? Probably not, for a whole host of reasons. But I do think Republicans were completely in the wrong for what they did in 2016 and I would like to see that fixed, regardless of any political leanings.

I also think Democrats are just flailing at this point. Even the idea of waiting until after midterms to approve a new Justice seems like wishing, as most indications at this point suggest Republicans will hold the Senate.
Click to expand...

A wrong to not have given Obama's pick a hearing? Maybe. I think it has more to do with the difference between a presidential election and a midterm election, but no matter. That's not the topic at hand.

You mention the need for a fix. How would you propose that we go about fixing it?
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.

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.

Would you support doing this if it were a Republican Congress, and a Republican President you don't like? (Obviously not.)
Click to expand...
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.
 
Slyfox696 said:
As a general rule/concept, no. But I do feel as if Republicans essentially, for lack of a better term, "cheated" President Obama of being able to fill an open Supreme Court seat for no real reason other than spite. I think that is 100% wrong and think it is a wrong which should be righted. Would I support expanding Supreme Court to right the wrong? Probably not, for a whole host of reasons. But I do think Republicans were completely in the wrong for what they did in 2016 and I would like to see that fixed, regardless of any political leanings.

I also think Democrats are just flailing at this point. Even the idea of waiting until after midterms to approve a new Justice seems like wishing, as most indications at this point suggest Republicans will hold the Senate.
Click to expand...
Sorry to say, but the only option is expanding the court, or threatening to do so unless one of the conservative justices resigns voluntarily.

Letting these kind of tactics go unpunished simply invites the GOP to play even more corrupt games for power grabs.
 
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...

We'll see.
 
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.

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...

What goes around comes around.
 
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.
 
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 sounds like a terrible idea.

I'd need some convincing to go with that.
 
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)
 
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...
Real classy.:roll:
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom