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

[Perotista]

“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

Leave the SCOTUS alone. Nine is good. Adding more justices smacks of putting party politics ahead of the nation. I would advise those who favor this to take a good look at what happened when ex-democratic major leader, Senator Harry Reid first used the nuclear option to get his way stripping the minority party of its rights and destroying 200 years of senate tradition. Reid's first use led to escalation to where once the Republicans regained the senate, McConnell expanded it.. These things lead to escalation after escalation.

I have no doubt in my mind if the Democrats expand the SCOTUS to 11 or 13 just to gain an ideological advantage, the Republicans once they regain control of congress and the presidency will themselves expand the SCOTUS to 15 or 17. Then once the Democrats get back in control, the SCOTUS will go to 19 or 21 and so on until we have 99 or more SCOTUS justices. If one party can do something, so too can the other party do the same once they regain power. All one has to do is look what havoc the first use of the nuclear option has brought us.

Just think, if Reid hadn't resorted to the nuclear option, any and all nomination would still need 60 votes for confirmation, not a simple majority. What that old equation, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Don't do it.

 

[Luce]

Leave the SCOTUS alone. Nine is good. Adding more justices smacks of putting party politics ahead of the nation.

Sort of like deciding whether a jutice being confirmed in an election year is okay or not okay based on what party they're from?

We owe the right nothing at all. Pack the court.

 

[rickc]

Trump got 3. We need 4. 13 is a nice odd number

 

[Vadinho]

Sort of like deciding whether a jutice being confirmed in an election year is okay or not okay based on what party they're from?

We owe the right nothing at all. Pack the court.

The simple argument in favor of expanding the court is the same argument they are using to pack it with another conservative in the next month or so. That argument is that if you have the power and it is legal, use it without reservation. Use it or lose it is now the Mitch McConnell Rule and I certainly hope we do so the second we have the opportunity. While we are at it, we should expand the number of House seats as well driving the population per seat from 700k to around 350k. That would double the number of House members and provide a better representation of voters intent then the current number. It is the peoples house, it is supposed to be representative, let it be so.

 

[Luce]

The simple argument in favor of expanding the court is the same argument they are using to pack it with another conservative in the next month or so. That argument is that if you have the power and it is legal, use it without reservation. Use it or lose it is now the Mitch McConnell Rule and I certainly hope we do so the second we have the opportunity. While we are at it, we should expand the number of House seats as well driving the population per seat from 700k to around 350k. That would double the number of House members and provide a better representation of voters intent then the current number. It is the peoples house, it is supposed to be representative, let it be so.

I am in favor of any number of supreme court justices. Any number at all. If the right plays games with the system and expects the dems to play nice to keep things stable, my inclination is to make everything take a hard left.

 

[Kreton]

There are very few atheists, agnostics, or deists who don't support true relogious freedom, you have your beliefs and practice how you want but keep it out of the public square or institutions if trying to spread it or make laws based on it.

Show anti religious bigots and their actual stand and how much of the population they makeup.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

I agree with you on keeping religion out of institutions and laws, however, to say keep it out of public square is the same as religious suppression. Public areas are public. There is no reason why people cannot use those spaces for anything as long as it is not harming anyone.

 

[roguenuke]

I agree with you on keeping religion out of institutions and laws, however, to say keep it out of public square is the same as religious suppression. Public areas are public. There is no reason why people cannot use those spaces for anything as long as it is not harming anyone.

It is not saying people can't have religion in the public Square itself, as in literally. More along the lines of not funded by the public, not taught in public schools (with exceptions for certain secular purposes), not determining public policy. And no religion should be held in higher esteem than any other. Dividing this country based on ridicule or praise of certain religions is hurting us.

Out of the public square is a poor wording choice. I have no problem with, for example wearing or displaying religious symbols in schools, military, even government as long as it os understood that it is just a representation of that persons beliefs, not holding any sort of expectation of others, and isnt funded by public dollars. I do have an issue with "In God We Trust" being mandated to be displayed in any public schools. Its bad enough on money and should be phased off.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[Felis Leo]

Taking away tax exempt status, particularly if churches or religious organizations are not fulfilling their side of that setup by staying out of politics, is not oppressing religion. They would still be free to believe what they want, preach as they would.

Fact check: O'Rourke said he would support removing tax-exemptions for religious institutions that oppose same sex marriage. Is that legal?

At CNN's Equality Town Hall focused on LGBTQ issues and co-hosted by the Human Rights Campaign, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke was asked by CNN's Don Lemon if he thought "religious institutions like colleges, churches, charities, should they lose their tax-exempt status if...

www.cnn.com

His campaign in fact explained it was specifically to those organizations that were discriminatory, not different than religious colleges that refused to allow mixed race married couples in/to live on campus the same as same race couples were allowed.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

I could not disagree more. As per the CNN article I posted, stripping a church or any previously non-profit organization of its tax-exempt status has long been considered a fine.

And before you begin typing, I would ask that you please consider a situation in which if such a tactic is used by the political left to punish conservative churches, how you would feel if it is then used by the far right to punish Muslim mosques, reform synagogues and black churches who are no less politically active but themselves often having only shoestring budgets in order to crush gathering places for their political adversaries.

The Government should not be in the business of determining which churches are legitimate or not, and fining certain religions out of existence.

 

[Vadinho]

I could not disagree more. As per the CNN article I posted, stripping a church or any previously non-profit organization of its tax-exempt status has long been considered a fine.

And before you begin typing, I would ask that you please consider a situation in which if such a tactic is used by the political left to punish conservative churches, how you would feel if it is then used by the far right to punish Muslim mosques, reform synagogues and black churches who are no less politically active but themselves often having only shoestring budgets in order to crush gathering places for their political adversaries.

The Government should not be in the business of determining which churches are legitimate or not, and fining certain religions out of existence.

Then the simplest and fairest way to deal with it is to tax them. Why should any of us give them a break? Because of Jesus? Please.

 

[Felis Leo]

Then the simplest and fairest way to deal with it is to tax them. Why should any of us give them a break? Because of Jesus? Please.

No, such a schema only favors already-rich and powerful churches. Because it is not just the money that is being paid, it is the burden of being subjected to audits by the Internal Revenue Service. I can certainly envision a situation in which a politically unfriendly administration starts cracking down on churches, synagogues, mosques and temples and forcing their closures for failure to comply with onerous audits.

My mother fled from a country where the government got to decide and use power to determine which religious groups were worthy of protection and those that were worthy of repression. I have no interest in seeing the re-creation of such a scheme in the United States.

 

[Vadinho]

No, such a schema only favors already-rich and powerful churches. Because it is not just the money that is being paid, it is the burden of being subjected to audits by the Internal Revenue Service. I can certainly envision a situation in which a politically unfriendly administration starts cracking down on churches, synagogues, mosques and temples and forcing their closures for failure to comply with onerous audits.

My mother fled from a country where the government got to decide and use power to determine which religious groups were worthy of protection and those that were worthy of repression. I have no interest in seeing the re-creation of such a scheme in the United States.

We are already a theocracy of sorts, God and Jesus is everywhere in government. No President will ever get elected saying he or she is an Atheist, Moslem or Jew. Hell, in 1960 people thought JFK was going to listen to the Pope for goodness sakes. Tax exemption status for non-charities acting as funnels for preachers to live on and politicize pulpits is not something I support at all. If that drives the little guys out of business, fine with me. Protestants are supposed to be able to talk directly with God and Jesus without the clergy anyway, that was why Luther put his letter on the door.

 

[Perotista]

Sort of like deciding whether a jutice being confirmed in an election year is okay or not okay based on what party they're from?

We owe the right nothing at all. Pack the court.

Yeah, in 2016 you had Schumer and Ginsberg saying confirm the judge, McConnell say no, no vote. In 2020, all three reversed themselves, Schumer and Ginsberg saying no, McConnell saying yes. There is no shall I see core value in all three and I might add in neither major political party. It's all political expediency. I think the democrats should have learned something about this tit for tat, this escalation of things from Senator Reid's first use of the nuclear option. With out Reid setting the precedence for a short term political gain, you still would have needed today, 60 votes for cloture. Now who's fault is that?

As far as owing the right or the left either political party, I owe them nothing. Until they or either one starts putting the nation first and political party second I'm against both to the hilt. This good for the party above the good for country has to stop or this country won't last much longer. It's doom brought on by both major parties.

You may not owe the right nothing at all, I owe neither right or left nothing, just this country, America as a whole and not just one or the others political base. I put the big A, America above the D and or the R, apparently you don't. Perhaps in today's modern political era of polarization, mega, ultra high partisan ship it is more important for Republicans to be Republicans and Democrats to be democrats while neither want to be Americans anymore.

 

[Vadinho]

Yeah, in 2016 you had Schumer and Ginsberg saying confirm the judge, McConnell say no, no vote. In 2020, all three reversed themselves, Schumer and Ginsberg saying no, McConnell saying yes. There is no shall I see core value in all three and I might add in neither major political party. It's all political expediency. I think the democrats should have learned something about this tit for tat, this escalation of things from Senator Reid's first use of the nuclear option. With out Reid setting the precedence for a short term political gain, you still would have needed today, 60 votes for cloture. Now who's fault is that?

As far as owing the right or the left either political party, I owe them nothing. Until they or either one starts putting the nation first and political party second I'm against both to the hilt. This good for the party above the good for country has to stop or this country won't last much longer. It's doom brought on by both major parties.

You may not owe the right nothing at all, I owe neither right or left nothing, just this country, America as a whole and not just one or the others political base. I put the big A, America above the D and or the R, apparently you don't. Perhaps in today's modern political era of polarization, mega, ultra high partisan ship it is more important for Republicans to be Republicans and Democrats to be democrats while neither want to be Americans anymore.

In a two party system, the choice is between the two parties. They rule America. I have no idea what you mean by picking America first outside of the two party system.

 

[roguenuke]

I could not disagree more. As per the CNN article I posted, stripping a church or any previously non-profit organization of its tax-exempt status has long been considered a fine.

And before you begin typing, I would ask that you please consider a situation in which if such a tactic is used by the political left to punish conservative churches, how you would feel if it is then used by the far right to punish Muslim mosques, reform synagogues and black churches who are no less politically active but themselves often having only shoestring budgets in order to crush gathering places for their political adversaries.

The Government should not be in the business of determining which churches are legitimate or not, and fining certain religions out of existence.

If they are promoting or denigrating either candidates, based on certain positions taken, or laws in their church, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc they should lose that status. Just like Scientologists absolutely should lose it for the shady shit they do.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

We are already a theocracy of sorts, God and Jesus is everywhere in government. No President will ever get elected saying he or she is an Atheist, Moslem or Jew. Hell, in 1960 people thought JFK was going to listen to the Pope for goodness sakes. Tax exemption status for non-charities acting as funnels for preachers to live on and politicize pulpits is not something I support at all. If that drives the little guys out of business, fine with me. Protestants are supposed to be able to talk directly with God and Jesus without the clergy anyway, that was why Luther put his letter on the door.

I think eventually they will, but it will take many more decades.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk