Are you in favor of stacking the Supreme Court?

[*bfine32*]

(10-27-2020, 01:37 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I was thinking something fair like every time the GOP pushes through a scotus nominee with a simple majority vote two seats will be added. Since Mitch is the one who changed the rule and decided a pres who most people didn’t vote for and senators who represent a minority of the voters get to force their beliefs on the majority.

Or something simple like two seats will be added for every religious cult the most recent scotus member was a part of.

Yeah I hate that Mitch changed that elected POTUS nominate, elected Senate confirm rule.

As to the simple majority, we've been over who set that precedent on conforming federal judges. Now the Dems will try to counter with "but not this type of federal judge" but folks really understand who set the precedent and who warned him about doing so.

[GMDino]

(10-27-2020, 09:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah I hate that Mitch changed that elected POTUS nominate, elected Senate confirm rule.

As to the simple majority, we've been over who set that precedent on conforming federal judges. Now the Dems will try to counter with "but not this type of federal judge" but folks really understand who set the precedent and who warned him about doing so.

Just because we've been over it doesn't mean everyone understood it.  As we can see above.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-27-2020, 09:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah I hate that Mitch changed that elected POTUS nominate, elected Senate confirm rule.

McConnell intentionally obstructed a SCOTUS nomination.

Quote:As to the simple majority, we've been over who set that precedent on conforming federal judges. Now the Dems will try to counter with "but not this type of federal judge" but folks really understand who set the precedent and who warned him about doing so.

As a result of more of McConnell’s obstruction to appointing federal judges. And the rule change didn’t apply to SCOTUS nominations until Mitch changed the rule. Which you know.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-27-2020, 10:44 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: McConnell intentionally obstructed a SCOTUS nomination.

Did he break the law in doing so? Was he allowed to do so by law or by the rules of the Senate? If you answered no to the first and yes to the latter, that doesn't go against bfine's point. 

[BmorePat87]

It was pointed out that historically we have had 1 justice per circuit court. For a while, the justices each spend part of their time sitting on circuit courts as well, but that eventually ended.

We kept the practice of 1 justice per circuit up until we reorganized the circuit courts and added the appellate courts.

When we expanded to a 10th circuit for the 2nd time in 1920's (we previously had 10 in 1863 but went back to 9 in 1866), we did not expand the Supreme Court back to 10 (as it was 1863-1866).

Since then, we now have 12 geographic circuits and the federal. It's possible that since the 30's, the idea of an expanded court has been too associated with FDR's desire for wanton expansion, but there's an argument rooted in historical precedent for 11 or 13 justices which I can support on a nonpartisan level.

[Belsnickel]

(10-27-2020, 12:02 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It was pointed out that historically we have had 1 justice per circuit court. For a while, the justices each spend part of their time sitting on circuit courts as well, but that eventually ended.

We kept the practice of 1 justice per circuit up until we reorganized the circuit courts and added the appellate courts.

When we expanded to a 10th circuit for the 2nd time in 1920's (we previously had 10 in 1863 but went back to 9 in 1866), we did not expand the Supreme Court back to 10 (as it was 1863-1866).

Since then, we now have 12 geographic circuits and the federal. It's possible that since the 30's, the idea of an expanded court has been too associated with FDR's desire for wanton expansion, but there's an argument rooted in historical precedent for 11 or 13 justices which I can support on a nonpartisan level.

Dollars to donuts, this will be the recommendation from the commission that Biden has said he will establish to investigate the issue.

[*bfine32*]

(10-27-2020, 12:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Dollars to donuts, this will be the recommendation from the commission that Biden has said he will establish to investigate the issue.

It may be their recommendation, but I fail to see the rationale.

[Belsnickel]

(10-27-2020, 12:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It may be their recommendation, but I fail to see the rationale.

I think the rationale was laid out fairly well by Pat in his description of the precedent for the SCOTUS. Whether you agree with the rationale or not is purely subjective, but the logical framework is fairly sound.

[*bfine32*]

(10-27-2020, 12:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think the rationale was laid out fairly well by Pat in his description of the precedent for the SCOTUS. Whether you agree with the rationale or not is purely subjective, but the logical framework is fairly sound.

I think historical reference was laid out by Pat (actually the latest reference works against his assertion as it did not expand), but I fail to see why have more circuit courts would correlate to more Justices on the Supreme Court. Are we going to assign certain Justices to certain districts? Is it just ceremonial? 

[Belsnickel]

(10-27-2020, 12:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think historical reference was laid out by Pat (actually the latest reference works against his assertion as it did not expand), but I fail to see why have more circuit courts would correlate to more Justices on the Supreme Court. Are we going to assign certain Justices to certain districts? Is it just ceremonial? 

From the beginnings of the court until those in Washington sought to reduce the presence of slave-holding states on the bench, typically they were appointed from the circuits, not assigned to them.

[*bfine32*]

(10-27-2020, 12:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: From the beginnings of the court until those in Washington sought to reduce the presence of slave-holding states on the bench, typically they were appointed from the circuits, not assigned to them.

So is the rationale that we should have a SCOTUS Justice from each circuit district?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-27-2020, 11:25 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Did he break the law in doing so? Was he allowed to do so by law or by the rules of the Senate? If you answered no to the first and yes to the latter, that doesn't go against bfine's point. 

It does when you mention precedent in the next sentence.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-27-2020, 12:57 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It does when you mention precedent in the next sentence.

What do you mean? 

[Belsnickel]

(10-27-2020, 12:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So is the rationale that we should have a SCOTUS Justice from each circuit district?

That could possibly be in their recommendation. Hard to say. I mean, the potential rationale for an expansion of the court, as presented by Pat, is as simple as: historical precedent exists for there to be a number of justices equal to the number of federal judicial circuits. That's it. That's the rationale.

[GMDino]

It is interesting, perhaps only to me, that in this case the right's defense of the Senate blocking Obama's nomination and rushing though Trump's nomination is that...they legally could.

Which is 100% true.

They did not break any laws nor did they do anything the constitution said they could not.

(Side note:  The handling was still hypocritical by the GOP as they were the ones in charge both time and played the system both times, IMHO.)

Yet in the next breath they are saying expanding the court is "wrong" because....reasons?

There is nothing legally or constitutionally stopping the Democrats (or the GOP) from expanding/packing the Supreme Court.

[Belsnickel]

(10-27-2020, 01:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: It is interesting, perhaps only to me, that in this case the right's defense of the Senate blocking Obama's nomination and rushing though Trump's nomination is that...they legally could.

Which is 100% true.

They did not break any laws nor did they do anything the constitution said they could not.

(Side note:  The handling was still hypocritical by the GOP as they were the ones in charge both time and played the system both times, IMHO.)

Yet in the next breath they are saying expanding the court is "wrong" because....reasons?

There is nothing legally or constitutionally stopping the Democrats (or the GOP) from expanding/packing the Supreme Court.

Pretty much. Both are violations of norms, but not illegal.

[*bfine32*]

(10-27-2020, 01:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That could possibly be in their recommendation. Hard to say. I mean, the potential rationale for an expansion of the court, as presented by Pat, is as simple as: historical precedent exists for there to be a number of justices equal to the number of federal judicial circuits. That's it. That's the rationale.

As I said he pointed out the historical reference; even though we didn't do it last time.

Well God help us if we go to 12 Justices.

[GMDino]

(10-27-2020, 01:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Pretty much. Both are violations of norms, but not illegal.

And we've spent most of the last four years seeing a POTUS violate the norms...and they celebrated it.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-27-2020, 01:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well God help us if we go to 12 Justices.

So many 6-6 decisions.

[*bfine32*]

(10-27-2020, 01:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: It is interesting, perhaps only to me, that in this case the right's defense of the Senate blocking Obama's nomination and rushing though Trump's nomination is that...they legally could.

Which is 100% true.

They did not break any laws nor did they do anything the constitution said they could not.

(Side note:  The handling was still hypocritical by the GOP as they were the ones in charge both time and played the system both times, IMHO.)

Yet in the next breath they are saying expanding the court is "wrong" because....reasons?

There is nothing legally or constitutionally stopping the Democrats (or the GOP) from expanding/packing the Supreme Court.

I stated blocking Obama's nomination was wrong. Seems that was pretty much the consensus around here.