• 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!

Do you agree or disagree with RBG stance on “packing” Supreme Court?

Do you agree or disagree with RBG stance on “packing” Supreme Court?


  • Total voters
    48

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
60,858
Reaction score
31,549
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
“Nine seems to be a good number and it’s been that way for a long time. I have heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges. I think that was a bad idea when Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the court … [and] I am not at all in favor of that,” Ginsburg said.

 

vesper

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2013
Messages
25,403
Reaction score
24,129
Location
Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I certainly agree with RBG's statement yet the Democrats are threatening to blow it all up if the Republicans get a nominee confirmed to replace RBG as soon as they take control of the Senate. So now we are not just threatened by the leftist Democrat voters on the street protesting and threatening people to conform or else, they will burn it all down. Now we have Democrat Congress critters threatening to do the very same thing.
 

Felis Leo

Moral clarity is needed
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
12,356
Reaction score
16,788
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
“Nine seems to be a good number and it’s been that way for a long time. I have heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges. I think that was a bad idea when Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the court … [and] I am not at all in favor of that,” Ginsburg said.


This is a fantastically silly idea, because it presumes that the Republicans will never again take the Presidency, the House and the Senate. So let us say, for example, the Democrats pass legislation increasing the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to thirteen sitting justices so that they can add four justices to the Supreme Court to tip the Court in their favor. Alright. Then there is nothing to stop Republicans from adding four justices of their own if and when they re-take the House, Senate and Presidency. There is certainly no good reason for them to refrain from doing so. And then when the pendulum swings, the Democrats can add another four, then the Republicans four (Hell, why not ten?), and so and so forth. Depending on the revisions, by the year 2100, the United States Supreme Court could feasibly have more justices than the Senate has Senators.

So instead of having a Court of ultimate appeal to render final rulings and verdicts, we will instead have a de facto House of Lords to decide what the laws of the land should ultimately be. Would that be a bad thing? Probably.
 
Last edited:

rickc

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
8,230
Reaction score
4,401
Simple

Wait for whoever wins the elections president and.congress to take office

Or if the democrats win our Supreme Court will have 13 justices

Democrats have just as much right to that path as Republicans have to appoint a justice
 

ClaraD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
26,869
Reaction score
10,259
Location
Somewhere in South Florida
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
“Nine seems to be a good number and it’s been that way for a long time. I have heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges. I think that was a bad idea when Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the court … [and] I am not at all in favor of that,” Ginsburg said.

I am for reducing the court to 7...eliminate the last 2 seats taken. It returns it to the original framework.
 

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
60,858
Reaction score
31,549
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Simple

Wait for whoever wins the elections president and.congress to take office

Or if the democrats win our Supreme Court will have 13 justices

Democrats have just as much right to that path as Republicans have to appoint a justice

The problem is that you seem to be suggesting Dems wouldn’t try to pack the court even if Trump and the Repubs held off and there is no reason to believe that.
 

ClaraD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
26,869
Reaction score
10,259
Location
Somewhere in South Florida
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The problem is that you seem to be suggesting Dems wouldn’t try to pack the court even if Trump and the Repubs held off and there is no reason to believe that.
If Trump holds off until the election is over and he wins, I am for him picking a nominee and that nominee being fully vetted. I am not for it happening, when voting has already commenced. Especially, considering the position of Republicans just a few years ago. If he wins then move forward..and that goes even if the Senate flips Democrat and he wins the election. He would be forced to find a more moderate justice and everyone wins.

When justices have been pushed through in a hurried way it has given us decisions that were horrific to our history...Dred Scott, Jim Crow laws being among a few of those coming from justices rammed through for political purposes. We need to choose our justices carefully not in a hurried fashion. I am for requiring a 60 vote requirement to confirm a justice...if you cannot get that...too bad...oh and no filibuster to bring the nominee before the Senate for vote...it is 60 or more or the justice is not confirmed...that will force the hands of both sides and a sitting president to do what is right for the country and not their political affliliation.
 

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
60,858
Reaction score
31,549
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
If Trump holds off until the election is over and he wins, I am for him picking a nominee and that nominee being fully vetted. I am not for it happening, when voting has already commenced. Especially, considering the position of Republicans just a few years ago. If he wins then move forward..and that goes even if the Senate flips Democrat and he wins the election. He would be forced to find a more moderate justice and everyone wins.

When justices have been pushed through in a hurried way it has given us decisions that were horrific to our history...Dred Scott, Jim Crow laws being among a few of those coming from justices rammed through for political purposes. We need to choose our justices carefully not in a hurried fashion. I am for requiring a 60 vote requirement to confirm a justice...if you cannot get that...too bad...oh and no filibuster to bring the nominee before the Senate for vote...it is 60 or more or the justice is not confirmed...that will force the hands of both sides and a sitting president to do what is right for the country and not their political affliliation.

You can’t convince me you’re interested in “moderate” choices when you support the Dems packing the Supreme Court if they don’t get their way. Have you ever argued for Dem restraint when they were in control?
 

ClaraD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
26,869
Reaction score
10,259
Location
Somewhere in South Florida
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
You can’t convince me you’re interested in “moderate” choices when you support the Dems packing the Supreme Court if they don’t get their way. Have you ever argued for Dem restraint when they were in control.
where do I say I support packing the court? I said, I support reducing the court back to 7...which is an originalist idea btw. The court was established at 7. That isn't packing the court, that is returning it to the original configuration. I have always supported moderate choices. I was positive during the confirmation hearing of John Roberts as well as some others. I opposed the confirmation of Thomas...so, not sure how that makes me not a moderate...also a 60 vote requirement would stop the political footballing.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
87,005
Reaction score
57,199
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
“Nine seems to be a good number and it’s been that way for a long time. I have heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges. I think that was a bad idea when Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the court … [and] I am not at all in favor of that,” Ginsburg said.


I like how you asked "Do you agree or disagree" and then your answers are "yes" and "no". Do you agree or disagree? Yes.

lol

I take it you mean yes to mean you agree and no to mean you disagree.

I do agree with her that packing the court is a bad idea. I think you just open up an "arms race" of sorts. Particularly given our current partisan, hypocritical system dominated by the Republocrat Oligarchy. It's best not to open that can of worms.
 

Checkerboard Strangler

Sagalong Catastrophe Ranch
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
60,452
Reaction score
42,278
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
“Nine seems to be a good number and it’s been that way for a long time. I have heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges. I think that was a bad idea when Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the court … [and] I am not at all in favor of that,” Ginsburg said.


She gave that interview in July 2019.
A lot has changed, specifically Mitch McConnell's stunningly hypocritical reversal on a precedent setting stance that he himself created when he refused to allow even a hearing for a SCOTUS nominee citing the election year.

For you or anyone to bring up a posthumous interview as a justification for servicing McConnell's hypocrisy is a new Goebbelian low even for you.
 

Felis Leo

Moral clarity is needed
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
12,356
Reaction score
16,788
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
She gave that interview in July 2019.
A lot has changed, specifically Mitch McConnell's stunningly hypocritical reversal on a precedent setting stance that he himself created when he refused to allow even a hearing for a SCOTUS nominee citing the election year.

For you or anyone to bring up a posthumous interview as a justification for servicing McConnell's hypocrisy is a new Goebbelian low even for you.

It was technically not posthumous. And the principle is the same: Once you start packing the Courts, the other side has no reason not to start packing the Courts when they take power. Then it is no longer about filling Court Seats. It is about which party has taken the Presidency, Senate and the House in order to expand the Court. The Democrats can add four seats in 2021. And when the Republicans eventually take Congress and the White House, their first order of business will be to add fourteen seats to the Supreme Court and fill them with Federalist Society justices. Then the Democrats will add twenty eight seats to the Supreme Court when they take power. We can end up having a Supreme Court bigger than the Senate. Hell, perhaps our Supreme Court will sit more justices than the House of Representatives. When political power is all that matters, why the Hell not?
 

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
60,858
Reaction score
31,549
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I like how you asked "Do you agree or disagree" and then your answers are "yes" and "no". Do you agree or disagree? Yes.

lol

I take it you mean yes to mean you agree and no to mean you disagree.

I do agree with her that packing the court is a bad idea. I think you just open up an "arms race" of sorts. Particularly given our current partisan, hypocritical system dominated by the Republocrat Oligarchy. It's best not to open that can of worms.

Shoot. You’re right. I meant the question to be do you agree w/RBG’s stance.
 

Checkerboard Strangler

Sagalong Catastrophe Ranch
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
60,452
Reaction score
42,278
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
When political power is all that matters, why the Hell not?

Tell that to Mitch. He's the one who thinks political power is all that matters and yet you're scolding the people who see no other option to stop his hypocrisy.
Nice.

By the way, the founder of the Federalist society now supports immediate impeachment of Donald Trump.
Isn't that interesting...
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
87,005
Reaction score
57,199
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
She gave that interview in July 2019.
A lot has changed, specifically Mitch McConnell's stunningly hypocritical reversal on a precedent setting stance that he himself created when he refused to allow even a hearing for a SCOTUS nominee citing the election year.

For you or anyone to bring up a posthumous interview as a justification for servicing McConnell's hypocrisy is a new Goebbelian low even for you.
Moscow Mitch is clearly a spineless partisan chump who lacks all integrity. But it would still be a bad idea to start the court-packing arms race.
 

trixare4kids

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
55,370
Reaction score
46,112
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I certainly agree with RBG's statement yet the Democrats are threatening to blow it all up if the Republicans get a nominee confirmed to replace RBG as soon as they take control of the Senate. So now we are not just threatened by the leftist Democrat voters on the street protesting and threatening people to conform or else, they will burn it all down. Now we have Democrat Congress critters threatening to do the very same thing.

When aren't the Democrats threatening the Republicans? Such tyrants!
 

Felis Leo

Moral clarity is needed
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
12,356
Reaction score
16,788
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Tell that to Mitch. He's the one who thinks political power is all that matters and yet you're scolding the people who see no other option to stop his hypocrisy.
Nice.

Nothing can stop Mitch McConnell's hypocrisy. And he is the most gifted Machiavellian politician we have had in decades. I have no doubt that he is very certain that the Republicans will lose the Senate in November. Further, the Supreme Court is solidly conservative right now with eight justices. Yet he wants to ram through an appointment in less than 50 days prior to the election.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself: Why is McConnell doing this? Why is he waving a red flag in front of the Bull which is the Democratic Party and its base? Especially when there is clear talk about packing the Court? Is it because McConnell is truly just that short-sighted? Or is it because he has planned out moves further down the road and foresees turning the Supreme Court into the Republican House of Lords by expanding the number of justices to a high degree, shunting aside John Roberts?
 

Felis Leo

Moral clarity is needed
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
12,356
Reaction score
16,788
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Moscow Mitch is clearly a spineless partisan chump who lacks all integrity. But it would still be a bad idea to start the court-packing arms race.

Au Contraire. I submit to you that Mitch McConnell is about as spineless and myopic as Otto Von Bismarck. I think twenty years from now we will be reading books on political strategy using him as a case study of the greatest Machiavel in American history.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
87,005
Reaction score
57,199
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Nothing can stop Mitch McConnell's hypocrisy. And he is the most gifted Machiavellian politician we have had in decades. I have no doubt that he is very certain that the Republicans will lose the Senate in November. Further, the Supreme Court is solidly conservative right now with eight justices. Yet he wants to ram through an appointment in less than 50 days prior to the election.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself: Why is McConnell doing this? Why is he waving a red flag in front of the Bull which is the Democratic Party and its base? Especially when there is clear talk about packing the Court? Is it because McConnell is truly just that short-sighted? Or is it because he has planned out moves further down the road and foresees turning the Supreme Court into the Republican House of Lords by expanding the number of justices to a high degree, shunting aside John Roberts?

It's because the Court has become neigh omnipotent and it's a life-time appointment. In the long run, control of the WH or Congress doesn't matter as much as control of SCOTUS. The R's and D's will flipflop control of Congress and the WH, but if they get young justices in, they can control the courts for decades.
 

trixare4kids

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
55,370
Reaction score
46,112
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
“Nine seems to be a good number and it’s been that way for a long time. I have heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges. I think that was a bad idea when Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the court … [and] I am not at all in favor of that,” Ginsburg said.


RBG wasn't for packing the courts with justices, so I voted yes.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
87,005
Reaction score
57,199
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Au Contraire. I submit to you that Mitch McConnell is about as spineless and myopic as Otto Von Bismarck. I think twenty years from now we will be reading books on political strategy using him as a case study of the greatest Machiavel in American history.

No, he's spineless. He tries to weasel control of the courts instead of standing by his words. Bismarck would wipe the floor with Moscow Mitch.
 

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
60,858
Reaction score
31,549
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
She gave that interview in July 2019.
A lot has changed, specifically Mitch McConnell's stunningly hypocritical reversal on a precedent setting stance that he himself created when he refused to allow even a hearing for a SCOTUS nominee citing the election year.

For you or anyone to bring up a posthumous interview as a justification for servicing McConnell's hypocrisy is a new Goebbelian low even for you.

What an odd think to be so pissy about. Quoting RBG in a relatively recent interview.
 

Checkerboard Strangler

Sagalong Catastrophe Ranch
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
60,452
Reaction score
42,278
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nothing can stop Mitch McConnell's hypocrisy. And he is the most gifted Machiavellian politician we have had in decades. I have no doubt that he is very certain that the Republicans will lose the Senate in November. Further, the Supreme Court is solidly conservative right now with eight justices. Yet he wants to ram through an appointment in less than 50 days prior to the election.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself: Why is McConnell doing this? Why is he waving a red flag in front of the Bull which is the Democratic Party and its base? Especially when there is clear talk about packing the Court? Is it because McConnell is truly just that short-sighted? Or is it because he has planned out moves further down the road and foresees turning the Supreme Court into the Republican House of Lords by expanding the number of justices to a high degree, shunting aside John Roberts?

All worthy of consideration and under normal circumstances I would agree that court packing is a poor choice.
So is shooting a person who is repeatedly pounding their boot into your front teeth, but sometimes one might only have that one choice to survive.

Newt Gingrich's plan for a permanent Republican majority cannot come true by votes alone but a packed SCOTUS filled with one party advocates can make it happen.
 
Top Bottom