"Packing" the court

[Crazyhole]

what are the pro's and con's of doing so? Should there be more than 9 justices regardless of the politics behind this maneuver? What exactly would be the constitutional justification of it?

Just for a point of reference, SCOTUS justices can be impeached and removed just like POTUS. If the party in power sees that a judge is going against the constitution, why not just remove them instead of adding 2 more justices to offset them?

 

[Ace of Knights]

Pros- Better Chance the court favors your policy agenda.

Cons- it will be done again in the future. Within 30 years there will be 45 justices lol

No constitutional justification to it at all, it would simple be in complete retribution to what McConnell did with Garland and this up coming nomination.

I imagine impeaching a justice would be much harder than adding more. Mainly because it has nothing to do with them going against the constitution, so there would be no grounds for impeachment.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

I think term limits and a president having a certain number of appointments per term makes the most sense to avoid the political shenanigans. I think 9 is a fine number.

 

[Ace of Knights]

Honestly, I have mixed feelings about the Dems adding justices if they get control of the senate. I’d much rather them attempt to bridge the gap or use the threat of adding justices to try and find a way to make a constitutional amendment to end the lifetime appointment of judges. There might be enough bipartisan support for this, because what is currently happening is not good for the country.

That would really take a lot of the politics out of the process and would be good for everybody. One 18 year term, something like that.

 

[firm_bizzle]

There should be term limits. 7 is enough.

 

[Crazyhole]

The only limit on their term should be age, not years on the court. 80 is on the far upper end of what should be ok, 75 would be acceptable.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

Why do you hate old people? Maybe @fried-chicken has been right all along about old people...

 

[Crazyhole]

Why do you hate old people? Maybe @fried-chicken has been right all along about old people...

I just don't like the sound they make when they chew their food.

 

[Ucfmikes]

There should be term limits. 7 is enough.

For Trump

 

[fried-chicken]

The only limit on their term should be age, not years on the court. 80 is on the far upper end of what should be ok, 75 would be acceptable.

75 too old. No supreme court justices over 30. It will be the litest court in American history and if your argument doesn't fit into a tiktok video it's not allowed to be heard by the court.

 

[firm_bizzle]

For Trump

Maybe if he cheats again.

 

[UCFWayne]

i would like to see trumps nominee get sworn in and then early 2021 have the senate vote to restore the rules before reid nuked them.

 

[DaShuckster]

i would like to see trumps nominee get sworn in and then early 2021 have the senate vote to restore the rules before reid nuked them.

ROTFLMAO! Ooooooooooooooooooooh, once the Republicans are in the Senate minorty, let's return to respecting SCOTUS precedent?

Obama served eight years and Trump less than four, yet Trump has named over twice as many federal judges. Gee, I wonder how and the world that happened?

But once Biden takes over, let's return to a respectful bipartisan approach to the judiciary, right guys?

 

[firm_bizzle]

ROTFLMAO! Ooooooooooooooooooooh, once the Republicans are in the Senate minorty, let's return to respecting SCOTUS precedent?

Obama served eight years and Trump less than four, yet Trump has named over twice as many federal judges. Gee, I wonder how and the world that happened?

But once Biden takes over, let's return to a respectful bipartisan approach to the judiciary, right guys?

Pack that court! 15 is a good number.

 

[DaShuckster]

The reason for the rush to appoint Barrett to the court is to strike down the Affordable Care Act immediately after Democrats win the House, Senate, and the WH.

But expanding the court after the will of the people is deliberately thwarted by the minority would be on the Democrats??!?

It's funny how judges like Barrett who are vying for a lifetime appointment can get away with NOT telling the American people their views on the key issues of the day in advance. That would be like your GF asking about your feelings on issues like having children and responding with, "that issue could come up once we're married so I can't share that with you at this time."

She considers herself as a "constitutional originalist" so I'm guessing she considers the US Air Force unconstitutional. 🙄

 

[Crazyhole]

The reason for the rush to appoint Barrett to the court is to strike down the Affordable Care Act immediately after Democrats win the House, Senate, and the WH.

But expanding the court after the will of the people is deliberately thwarted by the minority would be on the Democrats??!?

It's funny how judges like Barrett who are vying for a lifetime appointment can get away with NOT telling the American people their views on the key issues of the day in advance. That would be like your GF asking about your feelings on issues like having children and responding with, "that issue could come up once we're married so I can't share that with you at this time."

She considers herself as a "constitutional originalist" so I'm guessing she considers the US Air Force unconstitutional. 🙄

Ginsburg was the person that set the precedent of not commenting on issues that may come up. I agree with that precedent because it takes politics out of the equation.

 

[DaShuckster]

I agree with that precedent because it takes politics out of the equation.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

[Crazyhole]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

The only SCOTUS nominee that I have ever said should not have been appointed was Sotomayor, and it had nothing to do with her positions and everything to do with her saying that a Hispanic woman will make wiser decisions than a white person. That showed an inherent bias that should have disqualified her.

 

[Crazyhole]

We need 12 year old judges. That part of the population isn't represented*

Shuckster is ok with that as long as they arent catholic.

 

[firm_bizzle]

The Reps have already packed the court by not passing Obama's judges and rushing through through Trump's judges.

 

[DaShuckster]

IMHO, the question of whether or not a Democrat-controlled Congress "packs" the SCOTUS will hinge upon the outcome of the SCOTUS case this coming month regarding the ACA. If the Supreme Court's new conservative majority knocks it down, the outrage from the American Public will be palpable.

A Republican Party that couldn't pass legislation to end it -- and who now campaign with misleading claims they are FOR protecting pre-existing conditions (since its popular with voters, lie) -- they will do it through the Courts by using their Senate majority to screw over Obama's pick while fast-tracking Trump's while early voting is going on.

If ACA is overturned, it will be the proverbial 'straw that breaks the camel's back.'

 

[firm_bizzle]

IMHO, the question of whether or not a Democrat-controlled Congress "packs" the SCOTUS will hinge upon the outcome of the SCOTUS case this coming month regarding the ACA. If the Supreme Court's new conservative majority knocks it down, the outrage from the American Public will be palpable.

A Republican Party that couldn't pass legislation to end it -- and who now campaign with misleading claims they are FOR protecting pre-existing conditions (since its popular with voters, lie) -- they will do it through the Courts by using their Senate majority to screw over Obama's pick while fast-tracking Trump's while early voting is going on.

If ACA is overturned, it will be the proverbial 'straw that breaks the camel's back.'

This

 

[sk8knight]

The Reps have already packed the court by not passing Obama's judges and rushing through through Trump's judges.

It was one judge on each side. RBG could’ve stemmed this off Entirely by retiring while Obama was in office. Who was it that stood up in front of America and smugly said “elections have consequences?” Oh yea, that was the former Prez as well.

 

[DaShuckster]

It was one judge on each side. RBG could’ve stemmed this off Entirely by retiring while Obama was in office.

I'm curious, sk8, when would RBG have been able to retire in order for Moscow Mitch and his Republican cohorts in the Senate to deem it far enough away from the next election to 'consider' an Obama nominee? 18 months? 2 years?

Who was it that stood up in front of America and smugly said “elections have consequences?”

Keep that quote in mind the next year.

 

[firm_bizzle]

It was one judge on each side. RBG could’ve stemmed this off Entirely by retiring while Obama was in office. Who was it that stood up in front of America and smugly said “elections have consequences?” Oh yea, that was the former Prez as well.

It's all good. Elections will have consequences.

 

[firm_bizzle]

I'm curious, sk8, when would RBG have been able to retire in order for Moscow Mitch and his Republican cohorts in the Senate to deem it far enough away from the next election to 'consider' an Obama nominee? 18 months? 2 years?

Keep that quote in mind the next year.

Good point. Mitch would have held up both seats.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

I'm curious, sk8, when would RBG have been able to retire in order for Moscow Mitch and his Republican cohorts in the Senate to deem it far enough away from the next election to 'consider' an Obama nominee? 18 months? 2 years?

Keep that quote in mind the next year.

6 years. Obstructionist turtle wasn’t going to allow any Obama nominees while he led the Senate.

 

[sk8knight]

It's all good. Elections will have consequences.

The Dems have always pushed the boundaries when they’ve had majorities. The whining has been hilarious since the Republicans finally found the spines to play the Democrat’s games. It’s like the world is ending. Hell, Chuck Schumer even said that the ACB approval was the end of love. What a crock of alarmist shit.

 

[sk8knight]

When you all come off the high of “Go Team Blue” for banding together yet again, remember what actually happened last night.

A working mom with impeccable credentials who vowed in a confirmation hearing to go by the merits of each case and set aside political bias was rejected by every single member of the self-styled party of women. Not one of the 46 Democratic Senators could muster up the decency towards an eminently qualified female Supreme Court candidate who Senator Feinstein was praising before Senator Schumer forced her back in line. After the political games are forgotten and the score is all that remains, the party that screams about equality weighed in against a woman for no other reasons than the political games men play.

 

[UCFWayne]

trump has nominated 1/3 of the supreme court

 

[firm_bizzle]

The Dems have always pushed the boundaries when they’ve had majorities. The whining has been hilarious since the Republicans finally found the spines to play the Democrat’s games. It’s like the world is ending. Hell, Chuck Schumer even said that the ACB approval was the end of love. What a crock of alarmist shit.

The Dems(except Pelosi) usually don't have the stones to play hardball like the Rep.

 

[firm_bizzle]

When you all come off the high of “Go Team Blue” for banding together yet again, remember what actually happened last night.

A working mom with impeccable credentials who vowed in a confirmation hearing to go by the merits of each case and set aside political bias was rejected by every single member of the self-styled party of women. Not one of the 46 Democratic Senators could muster up the decency towards an eminently qualified female Supreme Court candidate who Senator Feinstein was praising before Senator Schumer forced her back in line. After the political games are forgotten and the score is all that remains, the party that screams about equality weighed in against a woman for no other reasons than the political games men play.

It was rushed through so quickly that nobody could learn much about her. It's a lifetime appointment, they should have had more time. Her credentials were not impeccable and being a mom has zero to do with the job.

 

[firm_bizzle]

trump has nominated 1/3 of the supreme court

A president that got 46% of the vote nominated 1/3 of the Supreme Court (lifetime appointment) with a Senate that represents 44% of the country.

*cue blue wave*

 

[UCFWayne]

A president that got 46% of the vote nominated 1/3 of the Supreme Court (lifetime appointment) with a Senate that represents 44% of the country.

*cue blue wave*

clinton should not have been able to appoint rbg then

 

[goodknightfl]

IMHO, the question of whether or not a Democrat-controlled Congress "packs" the SCOTUS will hinge upon the outcome of the SCOTUS case this coming month regarding the ACA. If the Supreme Court's new conservative majority knocks it down, the outrage from the American Public will be palpable.

A Republican Party that couldn't pass legislation to end it -- and who now campaign with misleading claims they are FOR protecting pre-existing conditions (since its popular with voters, lie) -- they will do it through the Courts by using their Senate majority to screw over Obama's pick while fast-tracking Trump's while early voting is going on.

If ACA is overturned, it will be the proverbial 'straw that breaks the camel's back.'

History has shown, exactly what happened at the end of Obama and what has happened with Trump pick is completely normal. As for Obama care, being repealed and not being constitutional are 2 different issues. I would have rather seen them repeal it. That being said, they did alter it, and if the changing of the act has made it unconstitutional, It should go away.

 

[firm_bizzle]

clinton should not have been able to appoint rbg then

That was one justice and I believe RBG was confirmed something like 96-3, so Senators from the majority of the country confirmed her.

 

[firm_bizzle]

History has shown, exactly what happened at the end of Obama and what has happened with Trump pick is completely normal. As for Obama care, being repealed and not being constitutional are 2 different issues. I would have rather seen them repeal it. That being said, they did alter it, and if the changing of the act has made it unconstitutional, It should go away.

It was normal to
-hold up Obama's pick for a year?
-get rid of the filibuster for SC picks?
-confirm a justice a week before the election?

 

[fried-chicken]

It was normal to
-hold up Obama's pick for a year?
-get rid of the filibuster for SC picks?
-confirm a justice a week before the election?

They know they stole it. We would have rammed one through too vs facing a loss of presidency. Both sides are playing pretend like everyone doesn't know what happened here

The real issue this highlights is that the Senate denied Obama his elected right to seat a SCJ for a year. They are ok with that too because it was within the legal power even if it was dirty.

The good news is, court packing is legal and dirty too. Since weve acknowledged that we are willing to go into dirty politics with regard to the supreme court. I fully expect chuds to forget that they love dirty politics when it comes time for that to play out.

 

[fried-chicken]

Just like I expect them to lose their minds when Biden calls climate change a national emergency, a power they believed was reserved for only very serious issues like a migrant caravan of women and children.

 

[DaShuckster]

The real issue this highlights is that the Senate denied Obama his elected right to seat a SCJ for a year.

Everybody knows the Founding Fathers didn't envision that. They assumed that Senators would put their country before dirty politics. When people don't operate in good faith, the whole system breaks down.

But the same people who snickered and posted "#winning" and "elections have consequences" will soon be whining at the 'unfairness' of those evil democrats.