Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court?

[*PhilHos*]

Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court?

[GMDino]

(10-08-2020, 10:55 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court?

Honestly I don't know enough about it to say yes or no except to give an opinion that simply adding justices so "your side" has a majority seems wrong to me.  If we really believe that SCJs are non-political and simply there to interpret the law then it shouldn't matter who is seated by who.  Although given how we can look at writings and past decisions we can have an idea with way they lean ideologically. 

The only time I remember doing any reading on this was when FDR proposed it and it got shot down but that was when I was in high school.  I'd have to do more research on the merits of the idea or why it is a bad idea.

Long story shorter?  I don't think I'm for it.

[Au165]

No, because like everything else it'll just become an arms race where we are constantly doing it with each new administration.

[*bfine32*]

I'm in favor of a stacked Supreme Court


Kate Upton for Justice

[*Nately120*]

Both sides can stack the court with justices who get to tell me what to do? Win/Win!

[CJD]

I am in favor of doing what is necessary to respond to the deceptive and underhanded behaviors of the Republican party.

If they force ACB through in a month prior to the election and then Biden wins and they re-take the Senate (both realistic scenarios), then I think stacking the courts is all but required.

But I'd prefer we keep it at 9 and the Republicans just sit down and let the election happen before the SC seat is filled, Like Graham promised back in 2016 and 2018.  Stacking the court gets complicated because it sets a precedent that the Republicans would then use once they regain power and it just will spiral from there. And, as we all saw with the nuclear option, opening doors for Mitch only makes him open more doors.

So I guess I would say "I'm in favor of our politicians acting ethically and morally and not attempting to game the system to absorb as much power as possible before their terms expire."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

One of the worst ideas to come out of the Dem camp in a year chocked full of terrible ideas. I wish I was being hyperbolic when I say that stacking the court would likely mean the end of the United States as it currently exists. It's such a naked power grab I think it would be the straw that broke the Cambell's soup can that got throw at police.

[BmorePat87]

(10-08-2020, 12:14 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Both sides can stack the court with justices who get to tell me what to do?  Win/Win!

Buttigieg had a plan that would have expanded it to 15 with 5 conservatives, 5 liberals, and 5 unanimously selected by the other 10.

Totally unconstitutional, but it would have balanced each side. 

[*PhilHos*]

(10-08-2020, 12:17 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I am in favor of doing what is necessary to respond to the deceptive and underhanded behaviors of the Republican party.

If they force ACB through in a month prior to the election and then Biden wins and they re-take the Senate (both realistic scenarios), then I think stacking the courts is all but required.

But I'd prefer we keep it at 9 and the Republicans just sit down and let the election happen before the SC seat is filled, Like Graham promised back in 2016 and 2018.  Stacking the court gets complicated because it sets a precedent that the Republicans would then use once they regain power and it just will spiral from there. And, as we all saw with the nuclear option, opening doors for Mitch only makes him open more doors.

So I guess I would say "I'm in favor of our politicians acting ethically and morally and not attempting to game the system to absorb as much power as possible before their terms expire."

I don't think you understand what the words "deceptive" and "underhanded" mean. 

(10-08-2020, 12:23 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Buttigieg had a plan that would have expanded it to 15 with 5 conservatives, 5 liberals, and 5 unanimously selected by the other 10.

Totally unconstitutional, but it would have balanced each side. 

Personally, I'm opposed to packing the court and I wish justices weren't partisan at all, but since we're most likely stuck with partisand justices from now on, I would not necessarily be opposed to this idea.

[Mickeypoo]

(10-08-2020, 12:17 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I am in favor of doing what is necessary to respond to the deceptive and underhanded behaviors of the Republican party.

If they force ACB through in a month prior to the election and then Biden wins and they re-take the Senate (both realistic scenarios), then I think stacking the courts is all but required.

But I'd prefer we keep it at 9 and the Republicans just sit down and let the election happen before the SC seat is filled, Like Graham promised back in 2016 and 2018.  Stacking the court gets complicated because it sets a precedent that the Republicans would then use once they regain power and it just will spiral from there. And, as we all saw with the nuclear option, opening doors for Mitch only makes him open more doors.

There is literally nothing unconstitutional about Confirming ACB.  The Prez and Senate terms end in January, not October.  Even Ginsberg agreed with this and was against packing the court.

Why was the 9 person court ok with the Dems when it was a 5-4 slant in their favor?
Why is it not ok to have a 5-4 or 6-3 slant to Repubs?
Is only one party allowed that?

[*Nately120*]

My perception is that the SC being enough of a rallying and recruiting point for both major parties will cause it to continue to be in "dangerous contention" as long as I'm on this mortal plane.

That goes double for someone like Trump who can hold SC judges over the heads of people who legitimately plan to face judgement eventually.  Oof. Anything this powerful being unresolved probably ain't getting resolved.

Not that I know the Supreme Court from a supreme burrito, though.

[NATI BENGALS]

I voted no but that all depends on the current crooked GOPers running our gov.

As Harris said last night Trump has already stacked the federal courts with a bunch of unqualified lifetime appointments. The most under recognized damage to our country he has accomplished.

If they jam through ACB then yes changing the structure is the only thing to do to balance the scales.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-08-2020, 12:36 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: As Harris said last night Trump has already stacked the federal courts with a bunch of unqualified lifetime appointments. 

Unless I missed something, you're saying being white makes Trump's nominees unqualified. That's quite the racist take to make on here.

[Mickeypoo]

(10-08-2020, 12:36 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I voted no but that all depends on the current crooked GOPers running our gov.

As Harris said last night Trump has already stacked the federal courts with a bunch of unqualified lifetime appointments. The most under recognized damage to our country he has accomplished.

If they jam through ACB then yes changing the structure is the only thing to do to balance the scales.

He didn't "stack" the courts.  "Stacking" the court is expanding the number of seats and then filling them with people leaning the way you want.  

He filled open seats, over 100 left open by the Obama admin that they could have filled.

Other than Harris saying so, do you have proof they are unqualified or is it because anything Trump does is bad to you?

[*PhilHos*]

(10-08-2020, 12:45 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: He didn't "stack" the courts.  "Stacking" the court is expanding the number of seats and then filling them with people leaning the way you want.  

He filled open seats, over 100 left open by the Obama admin that they could have filled.

Other than Harris saying so, do you have proof they are unqualified or is it because anything Trump does is bad to you?

Harris said they were all white. According to Nati, that makes them unqualified. 

[*bfine32*]

What do folks consider "jaming through". As I understand it the current admin and senate were elected to serve until 31 DEC 20.

POTUS made his pick only after giving the nation time to pay respects to RBG and I'd assume over 90 days of confirmation cannot be considered "jamming through".

[*PhilHos*]

(10-08-2020, 12:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What do folks consider "jaming through". As I understand it the current admin and senate were elected to serve until 31 DEC 20.

POTUS made his pick only after giving the nation time to pay respects to RBG and I'd assume over 90 days of confirmation cannot be considered "jamming through".

I wonder (not really) if these same folks were mad at Obama for trying to jam through a nomination in 2016 and were glad that the Senate stopped him. 

[Mickeypoo]

(10-08-2020, 12:50 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Harris said they were all white. According to Nati, that makes them unqualified. 

I'm really over this whole race has to be involved in everything thing.  Why can't we just go with the most qualified.  Period.

[fredtoast]

(10-08-2020, 11:21 AM)Au165 Wrote: No, because like everything else it'll just become an arms race where we are constantly doing it with each new administration.

This.

[fredtoast]

(10-08-2020, 12:56 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I wonder (not really) if these same folks were mad at Obama for trying to jam through a nomination in 2016 and were glad that the Senate stopped him. 

I don't think we can stop Trump from appointing a new justice, but it is silly to compare an appointment ELEVEN MONTHS before th end of the term to one that takes place AFTER THE VOTING FOR THE NEXT ELECTION HAS ACTUALLY STARTED.