Yeah expanding the court is also legal. Just like blocking an appointment for a year is legal. Same people celebrating now are going to lose their shit in 6 months.
"Packing" the court
- Thread starter Crazyhole
- Start date
It was the 6th conservative that sent this thing over the edge. Either both Obama and Trump's election year nominee should have been confirmed or neither should have been confirmed. You are a hypocrite if you make any other argument.
Only a legitimate existential threat can bring both sides together.
They don't care.
Calling a person a hypocrite as they gobble up power isn't going to do anything. They only way to fix this is to fight the gerrymandering, suppression, dirty politics, and disenfranchisement with the same tactics and not be afraid of looking like hypocrites. There is no fair play left and the idea that the right gives a shit about being called out is a joke. Call them any names you want they are determined to get power and that's it.
You make laws that give the people more of a voice. The majority of Americans wanting something and getting it is ok. The minority permanently stealing power for generations is not.
They know they are on the losing side long term. I expect Biden to negotiate the retirement of Thomas and Breyer, then appoint 2 justices.
Thomas isn't going to negotiate anything with Biden after the way he was treated in his confirmation hearing.
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
That’s garbage. She was on the list of candidates before the Kavanaugh appointment and she went through Senate confirmation for the US Court of Appeals in 2017 where she was approved largely along party lines 55-43. Total gaslighting to act like the Senators were unfamiliar with her or didn’t have time to determine if she was qualified or not.
Her legal and judicial credentials were impeccable. The only slights against her were her Catholic faith and a fear that she’s favor conservative causes. Neither of which should ever be a consideration for a Supreme Court nominee unless you believe in activist judges.
That is so much garbage. She wasn't a judge before 2017, so her "judicial credentials" weren't "impeccable". Just because she was on somebody's "list" doesn't make her qualified for a lifetime judicial appointment.
Ok, how about the ABA, who gave her their highest rating? https://www.abajournal.com/news/art...-qualified-rating-from-aba-standing-committee
She engaged in quite a career worth of work that included being a clerk of Supreme Court judges. Just because she’s only been a judge for 3 years isn’t a major factor. Unless, that is you think that Elena Kagan wasn’t qualified when she was confirmed despite having zero experience as a sitting justice in any jurisdiction. Or Rehnquist or Powell before her.
She's one of self-described "Constitutional originalists" for crying out loud!
This dingbat believes we should view everything through the lens of the original Constitution. So anything that wasn't around when it was written is suspect. You know, things like the constitutionality of the United States Air Force!!!
THAT is the kind of nutjob you want serving a lifetime appointment on the SCOTUS??!?
Yes, as opposed to some one who looks at international law to decide if something is constitutional.
Being a judge isn't required, I'm just pushing back on the "impeccable career" line.
No. An originalist recognizes the process of amending the constitution and those amendments are part of their "originalist" view.
The number of Supreme Court justices will eventually change. There is nothing in the constitution restricting it. There have been 5 other instances where the number of justices was changed. It was set at nine in 1869 in order to have coverage of all nine (at the time) circuit courts. Since then the number of circuit courts has increased to 13 but the number of Supreme Court justices has stayed the same. The ACB confirmation all but assured that will change if the democrats get the senate and presidency.
Gotta be honest, its weird how liberals now feel like SCOTUS needs to be changed even though the vast majority of rulings over the last hundred years have gone the way they wanted, even though the majority of justices have been appointed by republican presidents.
Maybe you guys should wait to see if the court actually starts to do stuff you don't like before throwing a hissy fit and change the rules.
What rights are at risk? Right to own a gun? Right to privacy? Right to equal protection? Please explain your irrational fear
I doubt that, half the people would still think it is some sort of conspiracy or would politicize it, I think this pandemic kind of proves that.
Trump just appointed 3 in a single 4 year term. Unprecedented in modern time. One of those was a stolen seat from Obama’s term. In fact republican presidents have won exactly one popular vote over the past 7 elections but have nominated 2/3 of the Supreme Court. The court wasn’t supported to be a partisan tool but Moscow Mitch made it one by refusing to confirm Obama appointees to lower courts leaving over 100 vacancies and forcing The Dems to break the filibuster to confirm them. He then held a Supreme Court seat open for a year and filled it without bi partisan support by breaking that filibuster. Without that in place, the ruling party will add justices to sway the balance of the court. The genie is already out of the bottle.
Why would you think the balance of the court would change just because the justices were appointed by a republican? 60% of justices over the last 100 years were appointed by Republicans, and yet almost every significant ruling went the way the left liked. Other than citizens united, give me a single ruling that you guys disagree with.
I think that because that was the whole point of stealing a seat and jamming through another last second pick.
Is that the point though? Republican nominated justices are almost never political ideologues, which should be the case. Is the left just upset that they don't have a reliably left-leaning justice so they need to put a bunch more on the bench to maintain the political bent? That undermines the entire idea of the court.
It’s already undermined through the breaking of the filibuster and political maneuvering to deny even a confirmation vote of a older centrist justice that Obama appointed. The point is there shouldn’t be political maneuvering to “win” more appointments for a single party. But now that there has been it has opened the door for every successive ruling party to do the same thing.
It’s not “lefties in here” you will have to convince if Dems get the presidency and the senate.
Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have made rulings that are not ideologically to the right, just like Roberts, Kennedy, Souter, and Warren, all of which were nominated by republican presidents. Somehow we are now led to believe that if a republican president nominates them they must be a crazy right wing ideologue in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Just to make the point, when was the last time a Democrat president nominated a Justice that wasn't a reliable left wing ideologue?
Kavanaugh wrote today in a SCOTUS decision that it would be “too confusing” to count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day in Wisconsin that are received in the mail later.
What “ideology” is that?
You do know that this has been happening for decades, right? That It didn’t start with Merrick Garland.
Please tell me what parts of her career don’t meet the definition below.
im·pec·ca·ble
/imˈpekəb(ə)l/
adjective
- (of behavior, performance, or appearance) in accordance with the highest standards of propriety; faultless.
- "a man of impeccable character
Color me shocked that you’re in favor of destroying 150 years of precedent and having left wing radicals pack the court.
Precedent hahaha.
Sorry twat. You don't get to do what republicans have done these 4 years of trumpism and then cry precedent. Get your asshole lubed up because we're giving you a good wage, a healthy planet, workers rights, pre-k education free college and healthcare and we're giving it to you by force because you're too dumb to do what's best for yourself.
