• 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!

Democrats to introduce legislation to expand Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices

WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats will introduce legislation Thursday to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices, alongside progressive activists pushing to transform the high court.

Democrats to introduce legislation to expand Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices (msn.com)


M'kay...so, being that power is transitory, whats to prevent the right from expanding the SCOTUS to16....or 19.....or 22, etc??

when does it end?
At what point do we say "cool...we have 1500 Justices, why do we need legislators?
Lets just cut out the middle man and stop thinking for ourselves.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...jacked-by-smugglers/ar-BB1fF8Te?ocid=msedgntp

Seems to make sense.

 
The courts are now dominated by people with conservative views of the Constitution when those views are consistently in the minority. In addition, four of the SC justices were appointed by Presidents who lost the popular vote. And of course one of those justices was selected in place of one that was stolen, a second was similarly stolen if you go by the logic used by Republicans to justify stealing the first one. Finally, these courts will be used to defeat election reform.

In light of these circumstances, keeping the status quo, especially for lifetime appointments, is insane.

Yes, yes, I know, BUT REPUBLICANS WILL RETALIATE. Yes, I know, the Republican Party is Hans Gruber. I get it. And the problem with this argument is that Republicans are already retaliating, first for Obama having two terms, and second for Trump losing the election. You can't threaten me with the notion of Republicans retaliating if they're already retaliating.

The second problem with your response (I assume this will be your response since you've said it in the past), is that the Republican Party is not only Hans Gruber, they're also completely disconnected from reality. Assuming a quid-pro-quo dynamic assumes a logic connected to reality, and obviously they are not connected to reality. The fact is that the next time they're in power, they'll add court seats on the pretext that we're simply talking about it now.

It is politically motivated court packing pure and simple to change judicial outcomes and conclusions, just to change the ideological lines of the Supreme Court towards one ideology over the other.

FDR had the same idea, force retirement and he wanted 15 justices to ensure favorable outcome from challenge to the New Deal.

Democrats today are not even being original about this so spare me the nonsense that Republicans "already retaliated." Elections have consequences and Trump was well within his Constitutional right to nominate whom he wanted, ended up with a complicit Senate and seated mostly whom he wanted.

We all complain all the time about Republicans not liking election outcome so change the rules and call it "election integrity," this is the same thing. Democrats did not like the outcome of the election before so they are wanting to change the rules of the Supreme Court and call it "no longer conceding the Courts to Republicans."

It is beyond hypocritical, might be the worst I've seen in months.
 
It is politically motivated court packing pure and simple to change judicial outcomes and conclusions, just to change the ideological lines of the Supreme Court towards one ideology over the other.

FDR had the same idea, force retirement and he wanted 15 justices to ensure favorable outcome from challenge to the New Deal.

Democrats today are not even being original about this so spare me the nonsense that Republicans "already retaliated." Elections have consequences and Trump was well within his Constitutional right to nominate whom he wanted, ended up with a complicit Senate and seated mostly whom he wanted.

We all complain all the time about Republicans not liking election outcome so change the rules and call it "election integrity," this is the same thing. Democrats did not like the outcome of the election before so they are wanting to change the rules of the Supreme Court and call it "no longer conceding the Courts to Republicans."

It is beyond hypocritical, might be the worst I've seen in months.
Court appointments are politically motivated. That’s just a reality. And the retaliation I’m referring to was the first theft of the court seat and legislating Democrats out of power through the hundreds of anti-voting and gerrymandering measures moving through every state with Republican majorities on the false pretext that the election was stolen from trump. These aren’t rational people you’re dealing with. They’re disconnected from reality and they believe you’re an enemy of the state; not merely a political rival.
 
WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats will introduce legislation Thursday to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices, alongside progressive activists pushing to transform the high court.

Democrats to introduce legislation to expand Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices (msn.com)


M'kay...so, being that power is transitory, whats to prevent the right from expanding the SCOTUS to16....or 19.....or 22, etc??

when does it end?
At what point do we say "cool...we have 1500 Justices, why do we need legislators?
Lets just cut out the middle man and stop thinking for ourselves.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...jacked-by-smugglers/ar-BB1fF8Te?ocid=msedgntp
Pretty shocking that anyone in congress would take serious steps forward with court packing.
 
Court appointments are politically motivated. That’s just a reality. And the retaliation I’m referring to was the first theft of the court seat and legislating Democrats out of power through the hundreds of anti-voting and gerrymandering measures moving through every state with Republican majorities on the false pretext that the election was stolen from trump. These aren’t rational people you’re dealing with. They’re disconnected from reality and they believe you’re an enemy of the state; not merely a political rival.

I did not say otherwise, and I do not dispute much of what you are saying.

What I am saying is you open this door the consequences of further politicizing the courts are open.

Which is exactly what FDR wanted, and seemingly what you want as well.

Do not complain when this gets worse.
 
This is a return to the tradition of having one Justice per Federal Court District.

Republicans/Conservatives love tradition, right? So they should all support this.
 
I did not say otherwise, and I do not dispute much of what you are saying.

What I am saying is you open this door the consequences of further politicizing the courts are open.

Which is exactly what FDR wanted, and seemingly what you want as well.

Do not complain when this gets worse.
When the other side tries to overturn a free and fair election, that’s bad enough. When they try to overturn a free and fair election on false pretexts, now you’re dealing with fascists who you can’t even reason with. It’s that combination of fascism, a lack of lucidity, and the fact that they see you as a domestic enemy instead of merely a political rival that makes a fear of retaliation moot, because the terrible future you’re afraid of is already here.

And again, it means a rational quid pro quo dynamic you’re afraid of is similarly moot, because that logical dynamic depends on them embracing democracy, adhering to reality, and seeing you as a fellow American they simply disagree. All three of those factors are absent.

And saying that I can't complain if things get worse has no impact on me because, as you can clearly see, I believe the "worse" is already here. It's like warning the cop not to shoot Hans Gruber for fear that he will kill all the hostages. Except in this scenario, Hans Gruber is already shooting all the hostages.
 
Last edited:
Republicans cheated to get their Supreme Court Justices appointed. I would say whatever the democrats can do is fair play.
 
Couldn’t be 16, 22, or 1500. That could end in a tie.
When it gets to 1500, it seems quite likely that at least one justice would have been somehow involved in any case that came before the Court, and would have to recuse.
 
Seems to make sense.


Why does this "make sense?" The number of circuits is wholly arbitrary, like the number of justices. Why should they be equal? If Republicans held the Senate and the Oval Office, would you still be saying this "makes sense" or would you be complaining about court packing?
 
WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats will introduce legislation Thursday to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices, alongside progressive activists pushing to transform the high court.

Democrats to introduce legislation to expand Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices (msn.com)


M'kay...so, being that power is transitory, whats to prevent the right from expanding the SCOTUS to16....or 19.....or 22, etc??

when does it end?
At what point do we say "cool...we have 1500 Justices, why do we need legislators?
Lets just cut out the middle man and stop thinking for ourselves.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...jacked-by-smugglers/ar-BB1fF8Te?ocid=msedgntp

No need. We have plenty of lower court justices. This is entirely liberal tears and revenge. I do support term limits though.
 
Republicans cheated to get their Supreme Court Justices appointed. I would say whatever the democrats can do is fair play.
Sigh. No, they didn't.
 
WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats will introduce legislation Thursday to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices, alongside progressive activists pushing to transform the high court.

Democrats to introduce legislation to expand Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices (msn.com)


M'kay...so, being that power is transitory, whats to prevent the right from expanding the SCOTUS to16....or 19.....or 22, etc??

when does it end?
At what point do we say "cool...we have 1500 Justices, why do we need legislators?
Lets just cut out the middle man and stop thinking for ourselves.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...jacked-by-smugglers/ar-BB1fF8Te?ocid=msedgntp

I don't think they will get away with it, however if they did....it would be the end of what makes the USA unique. The concept of "Separation of Powers" (three separate but equal branches of government) would no longer exist. The SCOTUS would just become an enforcement lapdog for whichever party is in power. FDR was an ass for attempting to expand the court and that may have contributed to the constitutional amendment to limit presidents to two terms.
 
what a BS ploy. you can't get much worse than this. Trump NEVER tried to implement authoritarian rule this badly in any way, shape or form.

You make a good point. Between executive orders, legislating with maximum of 50% support in congress, and now packing the court, theyre using every branch to dominate. Add in questionable elections. But its the states/peoples fault for letting this go on for decades or more. Nothing will change till people care more about federalism and less about partisanship.
 
what a BS ploy. you can't get much worse than this. Trump NEVER tried to implement authoritarian rule this badly in any way, shape or form.

That’s not what the mob that showed up on January 6th believed.
 
You make a good point. Between executive orders, legislating with maximum of 50% support in congress, and now packing the court, theyre using every branch to dominate. Add in questionable elections. But its the states/peoples fault for letting this go on for decades or more. Nothing will change till people care more about federalism and less about partisanship.

You had nothing to say when Trump was signing “Executive Orders” (most of which were empty gimmicks).

Passing legislation through reconciliation is going to be the way since the GOP has openly declared its intention to continue it’s more than a decade long practice of voting no (except on tax cuts for Wall Street).

The only thing questionalble about elections are the fact free and evidence free claims that the reactionaries on the right are still braying.

The court won’t be packed.

But if right wing talk radio can gin up its audience. by playing to that fear, than that’s all you’ll hear on your AM radio or NoiseMax.

And the fundraisers will get folks like you to throw money at them too! Works every time!
 
WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats will introduce legislation Thursday to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices, alongside progressive activists pushing to transform the high court.

Democrats to introduce legislation to expand Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices (msn.com)


M'kay...so, being that power is transitory, whats to prevent the right from expanding the SCOTUS to16....or 19.....or 22, etc??

when does it end?
At what point do we say "cool...we have 1500 Justices, why do we need legislators?
Lets just cut out the middle man and stop thinking for ourselves.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...jacked-by-smugglers/ar-BB1fF8Te?ocid=msedgntp
First, it's absolutely within Congress' ability to do that.
Second, do you think a court that has 6/9 Justices that are Catholic represents a fair makeup of the bench? How about a SCOTUS where every justice went to Harvard or Yale? 6 of 9 white? 6 of 9 male?

The court should be expanded and term limits should be added.
 
The Democrats will have introduced only one bill to do this. The Republicans introduced roughly 40 bills to end the ACA. Let me know when the 35th Democrat-sponsored bill to add 4 justices to the Supreme Court is passed and then it just may be time to pay some attention to it.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.
 
Why does this "make sense?" The number of circuits is wholly arbitrary, like the number of justices. Why should they be equal? If Republicans held the Senate and the Oval Office, would you still be saying this "makes sense" or would you be complaining about court packing?
Hard ball. Dems are finally playing it and that hurts your fee fees. Don't care.
 
WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats will introduce legislation Thursday to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices, alongside progressive activists pushing to transform the high court.

Democrats to introduce legislation to expand Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices (msn.com)


M'kay...so, being that power is transitory, whats to prevent the right from expanding the SCOTUS to16....or 19.....or 22, etc??

when does it end?
At what point do we say "cool...we have 1500 Justices, why do we need legislators?
Lets just cut out the middle man and stop thinking for ourselves.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...jacked-by-smugglers/ar-BB1fF8Te?ocid=msedgntp
There is no way this is going to end well for the Democrats. This will blow up in their faces and they will be lucky to survive it.

They just gave the GOP the 2022 midterms.
 
While this is foolish, needlessly provocative, and destructive, it's also not intended to go anywhere. Democrats know they can't pass this; it's a sop to the base.
this could lose them seats in midterms though, why would they entertain that idea?
 
Back
Top Bottom