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

[Acadia]

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.

The bottom line is that all of this angst and anger and jockeying for position is because Congress doesn't do their damn job of legislating. The courts are now our de facto law makers.
I'll go further and say that the ultimate play is for Republicans to never be in the position to add more justices, because Democrats aren't going to stop at packing the SC. They will pack the Congress by adding stars to our flag- D.C, Puerto Rico and possibly Guam.
They want a permanent majority.

 

[X Factor]

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.

Is there a liberal choice you ever thought too liberal?

 

[Acadia]

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.

Democrats will try to pack the courts no matter what. Also, eliminate the filibuster, add more stars to the flag, eliminate the electoral college.
All on their list.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

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.

It is a shame the left just can't play by the rules. It is either their way or we have to change the rules.

 

[Overitall]

“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.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposes liberal court-packing and praises Trump appointees

In an NPR interview released on Tuesday, liberal icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disappointed the radical left when she opposed packing the court and imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices. Many of the front-runners for the Democratic presidential nomination have advocated for one or both…

www.washingtonexaminer.com

I agree with her. Seven is also a good number. Five too. But what Democrats are proposing has nothing to do with ensuring the integrity of SC but ensuring their own power. I wonder what they would say if the Republicans held power over both congress and the executive branch and wanted to pack the court.

 

[ClaraD]

The bottom line is that all of this angst and anger and jockeying for position is because Congress doesn't do their damn job of legislating. The courts are now our de facto law makers.
I'll go further and say that the ultimate play is for Republicans to never be in the position to add more justices, because Democrats aren't going to stop at packing the SC. They will pack the Congress by adding stars to our flag- D.C, Puerto Rico and possibly Guam.
They want a permanent majority.

what precisely is wrong about making it a state and giving full US citizens their full constitutional rights? Oh, because they aren't Republican they don't deserve rights? What about the Republicans in those countries? How about earning their favor? Oh, what a concept having to actually convince a voter to vote for you...after you belittle them and their contributions...

 

[Ikari]

The bottom line is that all of this angst and anger and jockeying for position is because Congress doesn't do their damn job of legislating. The courts are now our de facto law makers.
I'll go further and say that the ultimate play is for Republicans to never be in the position to add more justices, because Democrats aren't going to stop at packing the SC. They will pack the Congress by adding stars to our flag- D.C, Puerto Rico and possibly Guam.
They want a permanent majority.

We should take Cuba too.

 

[ClaraD]

Is there a liberal choice you ever thought too liberal?

um, yes...there are people I would oppose if they lean too far to the left. My interest is more in if they will rule according to our present constitution and not what they want it to be. Not an originalist that ignores the amendments to the Constitution.

 

[ClaraD]

We should take Cuba too.

they are just mad, because now PR becoming a state may become a reality.

 

[Ikari]

they are just mad, because now PR becoming a state may become a reality.

But they would love taking Cuba. We get those cigars AND we eliminate a nearby communist country, turning it into a Western "Democracy". What more would they want? And Cuban food is good. Also, they bred the Havanese, which is pretty much the cutest dog ever.

 

[ClaraD]

But they would love taking Cuba. We get those cigars AND we eliminate a nearby communist country, turning it into a Western "Democracy". What more would they want? And Cuban food is good. Also, they bred the Havanese, which is pretty much the cutest dog ever.

Except Cuba was let go as a territory long ago. They were given their independence in 1902 and were only a US territory for a short time. We need to focus on our territories and making them states. We have Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands and Northern Mariana Islands. We made Alaska and Hawaii, which were both US territories, states. Puerto Rico should be made a state. The Virgin Islands would be a solid Democratic vote and would be clearly hard to change. Puerto Ricans have a large amount of military members, so I don't know what Republicans are scared of?

 

[Mr Person]

I may be having a brain fart, but is congress unable to pass legislation governing how it conducts its business so that it is not operating under rules that the GOP breaks at will? ie, Could they first expand the number of justices on the court. And then, to avoid future tit-for-tat, then pass a statute that (1) requires a 60-vote majority for SCOTUS nominees, (2) requires that that statute itself be repealed only with a 60-vote majority?

I've never really thought about either, but as long as such a law would not contradict a constitutional provision about the operation of congress, they should be able to do it. It does say, "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings" (A1, S5), and does not say that such a "rule" cannot be determined via passage of legislation. There's always the necessary and proper clause, as well ("To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." A1 S8).

I could have sworn the majority rule for passage of legislation in each house was of constitutional origin, but A1 S7 doesn't use the word "majority" or anything like it. ie, the second sentence begins "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;" The phrase "shall have passed" doesn't say anything about how many votes it takes to pass. It only speaks of vote counts when laying out the manner of overriding a veto (2/3). But, it is reasonable to presume that given the common meaning of words, passage would require at least a simple majority. The question is whether that section is read to require a simple majority, or just to set the floor at a simple majority such that congress could raise that floor as to certain things without contradicting the constitution.




I really feel like I'm forgetting something blindingly obvious that I really shouldn't have forgotten. . .

 

[Surrealistik]

“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.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposes liberal court-packing and praises Trump appointees

In an NPR interview released on Tuesday, liberal icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disappointed the radical left when she opposed packing the court and imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices. Many of the front-runners for the Democratic presidential nomination have advocated for one or both…

www.washingtonexaminer.com

I think it would set a bad precedent, given that, without a decisive reform of the court and the mechanisms of its appointments, we would have pack wars until such arises.

I also think it's necessary as an interim solution to its unacceptable partisan conservative dominance on the path to a long overdue reformation and curbing of a judiciary that has far too much power for its lack of democracy, turn over and public accountability (it's either that, or we lop off justices such that the partisan balance is restored). The idea that the SCOTUS is some sacred institution above and beyond mundane politics is easily one of the most naively asinine things I've ever heard. It is, has been, and always will be a political football/battlefield just like pretty much anything else in Washington, and should be therefore treated as such.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Is there a liberal choice you ever thought too liberal?

Too liberal for SCOTUS?
That would require a far reaching look back on the history of the court.
So I would necessarily frame it in perspective, say perhaps starting with Dred Scott, moving through Plessy v. Ferguson and ending at Citizens United.
Now, if you're asking if it POSSIBLE for there to be a liberal pick for SCOTUS that is "too liberal", why yes of course, because it is possible to BE "too liberal" (lefty) to be practical or pragmatic in a SCOTUS environment.
The court should be a healthy and vital mix that reflects the more moderate landscape of the people, neither too left or too right.
After all, in keeping with admonitions against judicial activism, the court must be the buffer against drastic tidal waves of extremist theory no matter how well funded. Rulings like CU represent a depth charge which threatens the stability of the SCOTUS itself, almost as if the court had elected to load the hold of its own vessel with explosive ordnance without a thought as to the fires of passion raging so nearby igniting it into a disastrous and all consuming conflagration.

 

[bomberfox]

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.

There will be a much bigger incentive if you guys BS this. Your call.

 

[Acadia]

I think it would set a bad precedent, given that, without a decisive reform of the court and the mechanisms of its appointments, we would have pack wars until such arises.

I also think it's necessary as an interim solution to its unacceptable partisan conservative dominance on the path to a long overdue reformation and curbing of a judiciary that has far too much power for its lack of democracy, turn over and public accountability (it's either that, or we lop off justices such that the partisan balance is restored). The idea that the SCOTUS is some sacred institution above and beyond mundane politics is easily one of the most naively asinine things I've ever heard. It is, has been, and always will be a political football/battlefield just like pretty much anything else in Washington, and should be therefore treated as such.

Fasted way to correct this is term limits for Congress.

 

[ClaraD]

I may be having a brain fart, but is congress unable to pass legislation governing how it conducts its business so that it is not operating under rules that the GOP breaks at will? ie, Could they first expand the number of justices on the court. And then, to avoid future tit-for-tat, then pass a statute that (1) requires a 60-vote majority for SCOTUS nominees, (2) requires that that statute itself be repealed only with a 60-vote majority?

I've never really thought about either, but as long as such a law would not contradict a constitutional provision about the operation of congress, they should be able to do it. It does say, "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings" (A1, S5), and does not say that such a "rule" cannot be determined via passage of legislation. There's always the necessary and proper clause, as well ("To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." A1 S8).

I could have sworn the majority rule for passage of legislation in each house was of constitutional origin, but A1 S7 doesn't use the word "majority" or anything like it. ie, the second sentence begins "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;" The phrase "shall have passed" doesn't say anything about how many votes it takes to pass. It only speaks of vote counts when laying out the manner of overriding a veto (2/3). But, it is reasonable to presume that given the common meaning of words, passage would require at least a simple majority. The question is whether that section is read to require a simple majority, or just to set the floor at a simple majority such that congress could raise that floor as to certain things without contradicting the constitution.




I really feel like I'm forgetting something blindingly obvious that I really shouldn't have forgotten. . .

they can indeed do that..and it is what I am advocating..and right now they would only need 50 votes and a tie breaker of the vice president Kamala if they win...

 

[ClaraD]

Too liberal for SCOTUS?
That would require a far reaching look back on the history of the court.
So I would necessarily frame it in perspective, say perhaps starting with Dred Scott, moving through Plessy v. Ferguson and ending at Citizens United.
Now, if you're asking if it POSSIBLE for there to be a liberal pick for SCOTUS that is "too liberal", why yes of course, because it is possible to BE "too liberal" (lefty) to be practical or pragmatic in a SCOTUS environment.
The court should be a healthy and vital mix that reflects the more moderate landscape of the people, neither too left or too right.
After all, in keeping with admonitions against judicial activism, the court must be the buffer against drastic tidal waves of extremist theory no matter how well funded. Rulings like CU represent a depth charge which threatens the stability of the SCOTUS itself, almost as if the court had elected to load the hold of its own vessel with explosive ordnance without a thought as to the fires of passion raging so nearby igniting it into a disastrous and all consuming conflagration.

he cannot fathom the concept that moderates actually exist in this world and that we want a moderate court that actually reads the Constitution and makes decisions from it...not deciding based on what some idiot in People of Praise said a justice should decide...yeah, I said it, its out there.... and yes, I know who they are...I was part of that idiotic nonsensical cult for way too long, until they forbid me from getting a divorce or taking my son with me. Any idiot that belongs to them does not belong on the US Supreme Court. She will have to consult with her husband who will have to consult with his advisor before she can make a legal decision on the court....she will tell you different, but it is a lie....she took an oath upon joining and not doing so, will cause her to be ejected from said cult that her father is a leader of.

 

[Moderate Right]

“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.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposes liberal court-packing and praises Trump appointees

In an NPR interview released on Tuesday, liberal icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disappointed the radical left when she opposed packing the court and imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices. Many of the front-runners for the Democratic presidential nomination have advocated for one or both…

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Oh, I can see the hypocrisy now. The left will be saying that we should honor her request to have the next president nominate her replacement and then they will totally ignore her wishes that the court not be packed.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

“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.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposes liberal court-packing and praises Trump appointees

In an NPR interview released on Tuesday, liberal icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disappointed the radical left when she opposed packing the court and imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices. Many of the front-runners for the Democratic presidential nomination have advocated for one or both…

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Nope. SC has to go. Time to blow it up. Useless.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

he cannot fathom the concept that moderates actually exist in this world and that we want a moderate court that actually reads the Constitution and makes decisions from it...not deciding based on what some idiot in People of Praise said a justice should decide...yeah, I said it, its out there.... and yes, I know who they are...I was part of that idiotic nonsensical cult for way too long, until they forbid me from getting a divorce or taking my son with me. Any idiot that belongs to them does not belong on the US Supreme Court. She will have to consult with her husband who will have to consult with his advisor before she can make a legal decision on the court....she will tell you different, but it is a lie....she took an oath upon joining and not doing so, will cause her to be ejected from said cult that her father is a leader of.

You were actually a member of this group? Wow, you have a book in you, possibly a bestseller.
And people thought I was joking when I posted all those "Under His Eye" memes?

“Members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a ‘head’ for men and a ‘handmaid’ for women,” the report read.

Trump Supreme Court front-runner Amy Coney Barrett criticized Roe v. Wade and Obamacare decision

Democrats sounded the alarm about the potential Supreme Court nomination of federal appeals court Judge Amy Coney Barrett over her ties to the Federalist Society and criticism of Roe v. Wade.Despite opposing former President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland 11 months ahead of the...

www.rawstory.com

 

[Tahuyaman]

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

I too would like to see less justices. I would also entertain the idea of eliminating the lifetime appointment.

 

[Cardinal]

The bottom line is that all of this angst and anger and jockeying for position is because Congress doesn't do their damn job of legislating. The courts are now our de facto law makers.
I'll go further and say that the ultimate play is for Republicans to never be in the position to add more justices, because Democrats aren't going to stop at packing the SC. They will pack the Congress by adding stars to our flag- D.C, Puerto Rico and possibly Guam.
They want a permanent majority.

It was McConnell's agenda that the courts specifically replace the legislature. That was the point of ramming through 217 justices (certainly a lot more before this is over).

We have to add court seats because if we don't, there isn't a single Democratic agenda that won't be blocked in the courts. If a mouse farts in the White House, Republicans will successfully block it.

It's not a situation you would tolerate, and if we win in November we're not going to tolerate it either.

 

[ClaraD]

You were actually a member of this group? Wow, you have a book in you, possibly a bestseller.
And people thought I was joking when I posted all those "Under His Eye" memes?

Trump Supreme Court front-runner Amy Coney Barrett criticized Roe v. Wade and Obamacare decision

Democrats sounded the alarm about the potential Supreme Court nomination of federal appeals court Judge Amy Coney Barrett over her ties to the Federalist Society and criticism of Roe v. Wade.Despite opposing former President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland 11 months ahead of the...

www.rawstory.com

yes, I was very unfortunately a member of this group for several years. I hated every minute. What I did not know is I was violating the tenement of faith in the Catholic church...to which I belong..and no I do not plan to relive that via a book or anything else.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Why do we always have to change the rules when the democrats don't get their way? Interpreting the constitution is pretty straight forward.