• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • 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!

Biden creates commission to study adding Supreme Court justices (4/9/21)

W_Heisenberg said:
All of these are unlikely to happen. The Democratic Party represents a more diverse coalition than the picture Tucker Carlson has painted for you...
Click to expand...

Your posts are not worth reading because they all pretty much say the same thing.

The part that I quoted is as far as I got.
 
MaryP said:
Garland was stolen from us, yes
Click to expand...
No moreso than all the other times that a president who didn't have party control in the Senate had their nominee 'stolen' from them when said other party in control of the senate rejected them in election year. And yes, it has indeed happened multiple times throughout our country's history.
 
Cardinal said:
You literally just made the case for expanding the courts.
Click to expand...

I think a general strike would be more effective for pressuring the current Supreme Court to rule in favor of the people
 
Winston said:
I think a general strike would be more effective for pressuring the current Supreme Court to rule in favor of the people
Click to expand...
What is a general strike?
 
VySky said:
Ah, Comrade Beijing Joey getting further marching orders I see
Click to expand...

I wonder if any former president threatened to pack the court, and if one did, what effect, if any, it had?
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Hello Joe.......

FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court during the Depression. It was a disaster for him.


It was called “Black Monday.” On May 27, 1935, the Supreme Court struck down three of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s signature New Deal laws.
FDR was outraged. He believed the Supreme Court was preventing him from doing what was needed to rescue the country from the Great Depression, which had devastated the economy and forced millions of Americans into bread lines.

Now, more than eight decades later, some Democrats are once again urging an expansion of the Supreme Court in the wake of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death.

The Constitution doesn’t specify how many justices should serve on the Supreme Court. George Washington nominated the six Supreme Court justices on Sept. 24, 1789, moments after Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Senate confirmed them all in just two days. Eventually, under Abraham Lincoln, the number of justices grew to 10 before Congress decided to set the number at nine in 1869.

Washington Post columnist Franklyn Waltman didn’t buy it, writing, “Mr. Roosevelt’s real objective is to make the Supreme Court amenable to his will, either by forcing from that tribunal some of those who have disagreed with him, or by permitting him to offset their votes with men of his own choosing.”
Click to expand...
Answered. Thanks, Common Sense.

The "switch in time saves nine."

Not exactly a disaster.
 
Personally, I feel the court should be as apolitical as possible and just hire the best judges in the country on maybe a long term like 10 years.

They should not get involved in politics and they should be able to make judgements without any pressure from any side of the ailse.
 
Aunt Antifa said:
Thomas isn’t even a real justice. He’s a OANN zombie-parrot.
Click to expand...
You just hate him because he's a Black Conservative (or "Uncle Tom/House N-Word" as Liberals would put it)
 
Roadvirus said:
You just hate him because he's a Black Conservative (or "Uncle Tom/House N-Word" as Liberals would put it)
Click to expand...

How do you know he’s Black? Conservatives swear they don’t see skin color.
 
Gondwanaland said:
No moreso than all the other times that a president who didn't have party control in the Senate had their nominee 'stolen' from them when said other party in control of the senate rejected them in election year. And yes, it has indeed happened multiple times throughout our country's history.
Click to expand...
Yes, in 1852, but in September, less than 90 days before the election. NEVER 293 days before an election. It was stolen, purely for partisan reasons and you should be happy I don't want to make the Republicans pay for it like many here do..
 
Peter said:
Personally, I feel the court should be as apolitical as possible and just hire the best judges in the country on maybe a long term like 10 years.

They should not get involved in politics and they should be able to make judgements without any pressure from any side of the ailse.
Click to expand...
Well, that would be great. Unfortunately, that's not the case, and it's always been like that. They never would have ruled in favor of slavery if they just applied the law.
 
MaryP said:
Sorry. That was WaPo's suggestion. What were you thinking of?
Click to expand...
I was thinking this is just Party A being mad that Party B got 2 nominations in and are trying to fudge the system to get their way. I'm absolutely against any change to the Supreme Court at all.

I voted for Trump for the SCOTUS nominations so changing the system after the fact invalidates my vote and disenfranchises me as a voter. We have enough reasons to lose faith in the system, let's not add to it.
 
Last edited:
Common Sense 1 said:
So what did Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg think about adding Justices to the supreme court?

View attachment 67327982


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she opposes proposals by Democratic presidential candidates to increase the number of seats on the Supreme Court because doing so would make it look partisan.

“It would be that — one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to,’” Ginsburg told NPR in an interview that aired Wednesday.
“Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time,” she said Tuesday.


www.cnbc.com

Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she opposes proposals from 2020 Democrats to expand the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposes proposals floated by Democratic presidential candidates to increase the number of justices on the top court, saying any such plan would make the court look partisan.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Wayne Jr said:
I was thinking this is just Party A being mad that Party B got 2 nominations in and are trying to fudge the system to get their way. I'm absolutely against any change to the Supreme Court at all.

I voted for Trump for the SCOTUS nominations so changing the system after the fact invalidates my vote and disenfranchises me as a voter. We have enough reasons to lose faith in the system, let's not add to it.
Click to expand...
3 nominations. One was stolen.
 
MaryP said:
3 nominations. One was stolen.
Click to expand...
No, nothing was "stolen". Historical prescedent was followed with 2020s ACB nomination and with 2016s Garland nomination.

www.abajournal.com

History shows how SCOTUS nominations play out in election years

The ABA Journal is read by half of the nation's 1 million lawyers every month. It covers the trends, people and finances of the legal profession from Wall Street to Main Street to Pennsylvania Avenue.
www.abajournal.com
Dan McLaughlin wrote in the National Review that 29 times there has been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, or in a lame-duck session before the next presidential inauguration.

“The president made a nomination in all twenty-nine cases,” he wrote. McLaughlin added that “19 times between 1796 and 1968, presidents have sought to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential-election year while their party controlled the Senate. Ten of those nominations came before the election; nine of the 10 were successful.”

By contrast, when the president and Senate were from opposite parties, there have been 10 vacancies resulting in a presidential election-year or post-election nomination. In six of the 10 cases, the president made a nomination before Election Day, but only one of those was confirmed by the Senate controlled by the opposite party. That was President Grover Cleveland’s nomination of Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller in 1888.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom