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

[Grizzly Adams]

Hard ball. Dems are finally playing it and that hurts your fee fees. Don't care.

So... no answer on why it "makes sense?" Is that because it really doesn't "make sense" and instead is just an invented justification that sounds like it "makes sense" on the surface but doesn't hold up to even the slightest amount of scrutiny?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

They didn’t cheat. They played politics, but the Dems would have done the same thing if given the chance. Now the Dems are playing politics. Sucks to be on the other side sometimes.

Republicans followed common practice. Opposition Senates usually don't confirm Supreme Court nominees in the last year of a president's term. It's the exception, not the rule. Conversely, confirming nominees from a president of the same party in the final year of their term is the rule, not the exception.

What is not the rule is expanding the size of the court because you don't like the justices.

 

[poweRob]

So... no answer on why it "makes sense?" Is that because it really doesn't "make sense" and instead is just an invented justification that sounds like it "makes sense" on the surface but doesn't hold up to even the slightest amount of scrutiny?

Representation in a Democratic Republic makes sense to me. Predictable that it doesn't for you I suppose.

 

[Roadvirus]

Figures Nitwit Nadler would be involved. And i see Hank "Guam will capsize!" Johnson is playing too.

 

[uptower]

Democrats are risking civil war. I hope they stocked up the right "supplies".

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Representation in a Democratic Republic makes sense to me.

You said the idea of having thirteen justices because there are thirteen circuits "makes sense," not this.

Predictable that it doesn't for you I suppose.

Why is that, exactly?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Figures Nitwit Nadler would be involved. And i see Hank "Guam will capsize!" Johnson is playing too.

I saw that joke on Twitter. Someone worried that the court would tip over.

 

[Roadvirus]

I saw that joke on Twitter. Someone worried that the court would tip over.

That moment defined his reputation.

"Great Congressman"?
Nope...."That Guy Who Said 'Guam Would Capsize' If More Troops Were Stationed There"

 

[poweRob]

You said the idea of having thirteen justices because there are thirteen circuits "makes sense," not this.

My bad, I got my threads mixed up. This makes sense because it has been expanded several times before so it makes just as much sense as it does to solidify it at 7.

The Supreme Court Has Been Expanded Many Times Before. Here Are Four Ways To Do It Today.

By Kurt Walters* In today’s crowded Democratic primary season, one issue has emerged that would have been unthinkable as recently as 2016: increasing the number of justices on the U.S. Supreme Cour…

harvardlpr.com

 

[Grizzly Adams]

My bad, I got my threads mixed up. This makes sense because it has been expanded several times before so it makes just as much sense as it does to solidify it at 7.

The Supreme Court Has Been Expanded Many Times Before. Here Are Four Ways To Do It Today.

By Kurt Walters* In today’s crowded Democratic primary season, one issue has emerged that would have been unthinkable as recently as 2016: increasing the number of justices on the U.S. Supreme Cour…

harvardlpr.com

That's not a reason it "makes sense," though. Lots of things have been done in the past. That doesn't mean it automatically makes sense to do them again.

 

[Court Jester]

You all will have a LOT of catching up to do in the "skill sets" department....LOL.
There ain't no Starbucks and cell phone chargers were I have been.

Out here on the perimeter, there are no stars.... out here we is stoned immaculate.

So, keep practicing. You don't earn a man card by burning flags and breaking windows. There is a bit more to it than that.

 

[uptower]

That's actually funny, but these people are NOT promising a civil war, it's civil unrest

You all will have a LOT of catching up to do in the "skill sets" department....LOL.
There ain't no Starbucks and cell phone chargers were I have been.

Out here on the perimeter, there are no stars.... out here we is stoned immaculate.

So, keep practicing. You don't earn a man card by burning flags and breaking windows. There is a bit more to it than that.

Ooh such bwavewy...

It's not gonna happen. You lot won't get your 'civil war' and if you did, being able to sneak up on a defenseless animal a hundred yards away and shoot it when it's not looking (or a yoga studio fulla chicks that rejected you) won't save you from tanks and bombs. The Boogaloo Bitches are lying to you.

 

[Chomsky]

We did, but we use different supplies than righties do. We call ours: police, sheriff, DPS, FBI, and national guard. There’s also the US military but it would have to be a considerably larger war than any of us is expecting for those guys to weigh in.

Bingo!

I'm so tired of listening to these armchair revolutionaries & their pipe-dreams taking nonsense.

 

[Phys251]

Democrats are risking civil war. I hope they stocked up the right "supplies".

 

[Phys251]

How do you folks fix your mouths to say such things after january the sixth?

Simple. Glue them to ****er Carlson's asshole.

 

[Chomsky]

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.

Re: That I bolded

You should have quit while you were ahead . . .

 

[Chomsky]

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.

'Not politicizing the Court', went by the wayside when McConnell blocked Obama's pick & later installed Trump's. I agree this would ratchet it up a notch, but I believe - like with FDR - it's all posturing.

 

[Chomsky]

So... no answer on why it "makes sense?" Is that because it really doesn't "make sense" and instead is just an invented justification that sounds like it "makes sense" on the surface but doesn't hold up to even the slightest amount of scrutiny?

It makes sense, as was pointed-out upthread, to dilute the effect an individual President can have on the Court.

 

[jonny5]

Re: That I bolded

You should have quit while you were ahead . . .

Feel free to DEBATE it.

 

[ettoremathedi]

Republicans pack courts at the state and municipal level every year. Screw them. Time to even the playing field

 

[tres borrachos]

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

Just curious how you went from 13 justices to 1500.

 

[Hatuey]

Just curious how you went from 13 justices to 1500.

Math, it's @Bum 's hidden talent.

 

[ettoremathedi]

From the washington post:

The first so-called success was in Arizona. Early in 2016, a Republican lawmaker introduced House Bill 2537, which sought to expand the Arizona Supreme Court from five to seven justices. The Republican-controlled legislature approved the measure, with no support from Democrats. Nor was it supported by any of the court’s five justices, with the chief justice writing to the governor that additional seats were “not required by the Court’s caseload” and in fact would not be “warranted” given how costly such a proposal would be at a time when other court-related needs were “underfunded.” Several news outlets called the bill an attempt to “Bring Back Court-Packing,” noting that the Republican governor, Doug Ducey, would select the new justices from a list created by the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments (whose members the governor appoints). Days later, the governor signed the bill into law. The two new justices (both appointed by Ducey) took their seats in December 2016, tilting that court further to the right.

Georgia offers another example of successful court-packing. In 2016, the state’s Supreme Court had four Democratic and three Republican appointees. That spring, the Republican-controlled General Assembly passed a bill expanding the court to nine justices from seven and giving the Republican governor — who promptly signed the bill into law — the power to fill the two new seats in the first instance. By early 2017, then-Gov. Nathan Deal had done so, resulting in a “more conservative-leaning” court, as the Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote.

So cry me a river..