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

[calamity]

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.

We should blow it all up. Hell, the Right just proved the Constitution is as worthless as used toilet paper.

 

[eohrnberger]

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.

"They want a permanent majority."
Of course they do.
The Democrats have demonstrated little care for the Constitution (when it doesn't suit their political agenda).
The Democrats have demonstrated little care for the people they claim to care about (minorities and permitted riots in their neighborhood and business districts).
The Democrats have demonstrated little care for the electorate (continuing the practice of identity politics and the politics of division).
The Democrats have demonstrated little care for facts and truth (just as long as their preferred and demanded political narrative is promulgated).
The Democrats have demonstrated little care for facts and truth (enlisting a more than willing media to be their political propaganda arm).
The Democrats have demonstrated little care for supporting destructive riots which are burning down the major cities they politically control.

The Democrats have only shown care or concern for much of anything that didn't relate to their political power 'by whatever means necessary', and that in and of itself is not only a dangerous sign, a danger to the Republic, full stop.

 

[ClaraD]

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

um, Repubicans are the ones that changed the rules...deal with it.

 

[ClaraD]

"They want a permanent majority."
Of course they do.
The Democrats have demonstrated little care for the Constitution (when it doesn't suit their political agenda).
The Democrats have demonstrated little care for the people they claim to care about (minorities and permitted riots in their neighborhood and business districts).
The Democrats have demonstrated little care for the electorate (continuing the practice of identity politics and the politics of division).
The Democrats have demonstrated little care for facts and truth (just as long as their preferred and demanded political narrative is promulgated).
The Democrats have demonstrated little care for facts and truth (enlisting a more than willing media to be their political propaganda arm).
The Democrats have demonstrated little care for supporting destructive riots which are burning down the major cities they politically control.

The Democrats have only shown care or concern for much of anything that didn't relate to their political power 'by whatever means necessary', and that in and of itself is not only a dangerous sign, a danger to the Republic, full stop.

Republicans have been gerrymandering for 4 decades...get over it.

 

[Rawley]

We should blow it all up. Hell, the Right just proved the Constitution is as worthless as used toilet paper.

??? They are following the Constitution. President nominates, Senate confirms.

 

[Rawley]

um, Repubicans are the ones that changed the rules...deal with it.

No rules were changed.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

um, Repubicans are the ones that changed the rules...deal with it.

So it is the republicans that want to pack the supreme court and do away with the EC because they did not win the last election and do not get to elect the next SC judge. My mistake.

 

[ClaraD]

So it is the republicans that want to pack the supreme court and do away with the EC because they did not win the last election and do not get to elect the next SC judge. My mistake.

Republicans have bragged for 5 years about packing the court.

 

[Rawley]

Republicans have bragged for 5 years about packing the court.

I have never heard a single Republican ever suggest packing the Supreme Court.

 

[ClaraD]

I have never heard a single Republican ever suggest packing the Supreme Court.

bawhaha have you had your head in the sand?

The last four years have seen conservatives—under the leadership of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and aided by organizations such as the Federalist Society and Judicial Crisis Network—embark on a similarly audacious plan to achieve their policy goals by altering the ideological bent of the courts, including the Supreme Court. Their plan, however, is subtler: Instead of adding justices in one fell swoop, they have been packing the federal courts through abuse of the Senate’s advice and consent power.

Conservatives’ stealth court-packing plan is a two-step approach. Step one: Steal seats by blocking the confirmation of judges until both the White House and the Senate are under conservative control. The most infamous example was the McConnell-led refusal to even hold a hearing for President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. But the treatment of Judge Garland was merely the most visible manifestation of a far-reaching scheme to hold judicial seats open until a conservative president could fill them. It was conservative efforts to prevent any appointments to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit—following five years of obstructing Obama’s judicial nominees—that finally led senators supportive of President Barack Obama’s nominees to eliminate the filibuster in 2013 when confirming lower-court judges.

During Obama’s last two years as president, the McConnell-led Senate majority confirmed the fewest judges in more than half a century, including only two appellate court judges. All told, McConnell and his conservative Senate allies held open more than 110 judicial seats by the end the Obama presidency. Conservative senators made clear that had Trump not won, efforts to hold seats open would have continued. John McCain stated in the run-up to the 2016 election that, “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up.

so stop pretending to be holier than thou...
Step two: After first preventing President Obama from appointing judges, change the nomination and confirmation process rules so that the most partisan conservative judges can be appointed at breakneck speed. First, conservative Senate leaders invoked the so-called nuclear option to allow Supreme Court justices to be confirmed through majority votes. Then they cut home-state senators out of the judicial nominations process, ending a century-old tradition of giving those senators a say in the judges that were confirmed. To further speed the process, they stopped working with the American Bar Association (ABA) to determine whether nominees were qualified to be judges, resulting in Trump nominating six nominees that the ABA deemed “not qualified.” In addition, they broke the Senate committee review process by packing hearings and markups with too many nominees to properly vet, including doing so twice when the Senate was actually in recess.

Conservative Court Packing

Court packing isn’t a theoretical idea—it’s happening right now.

www.americanprogress.org

 

[eohrnberger]

Republicans have been gerrymandering for 4 decades...get over it.

Old and tired, doesn't change a single one of the points that I raised in my post.

What I'm reading in your post is 'Democrats don't win enough elections so they demand to change the rules until they do'.

 

[slick]

RGB made sense with her remarks about packing the court. If one party can do it so can the other.
If the Dems go that route by 2050 there will probably be 51 members of the SCOTUS. As hair brained
a sceme as ever concocted!

 

[joko104]

And just like that, many Democrats don't give a damn what Justice Ginsburg said.

 

[SheWolf]

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.

BS
It’s no secret that the right and you have admitted to wanting a conservative court. You do favor a packed court. You should have never politicized from the beginning. If you want to honor the wishes of RBG, you would oppose Trump appointing another judge to the bench right now and you wouldn’t be for packing or politicizing the court, which you are. you’re simply picking and choosing what she says, and pretending you’re not a hypocrite. Roll the tape on Graham and McConnell. Your whole party is nothing but a pack of liars and hypocrites.

 

[Bullseye]

“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

Nine is a good number - enough differences of opinion, experience, and critical thinking.

 

[Bullseye]

BS
It’s no secret that the right and you have admitted to wanting a conservative court. You do favor a packed court. You should have never politicized from the beginning. If you want to honor the wishes of RBG, you would oppose Trump appointing another judge to the bench right now and you wouldn’t be for packing or politicizing the court, which you are. you’re simply picking and choosing what she says, and pretending you’re not a hypocrite. Roll the tape on Graham and McConnell. Your whole party is nothing but a pack of liars and hypocrites.

Nothing in the Constitution about "wishes". When a vacancy occurs the President nominates a candidate and the Senate "advises and consents". End of story.

 

[SheWolf]

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 court isn’t supposed to decide the law of the land. They are supposed to interpret the constitution. McConnell is an absolute scumbag for breaking the senate and not bringing anything up to vote. The Senate creates the laws, but it has failed under McConnell’s leadership. McConnell is seeking to politicize the courts in order to change the laws he refuses or can’t pass in senate. The GOP couldn’t vote away Obamacare, so they want the courts to dismantle it. They could try to pass a constitutional amendment for their pro life values, but instead, they have focused on politicizing the Supreme Court.

as for a ton of judges, the more judges, the less likely it would be to pack it full of liberals or conservatives. The court needs to be moderated. I don’t want a radical court.

maybe term limits would be better, idk, but the Supreme Court has already been politicized and damaged

 

[SheWolf]

And just like that, many Democrats don't give a damn what Justice Ginsburg said.

She also said she didn’t want Trump in control of appointing a new justice to her chair

 

[SheWolf]

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.

It wouldn’t be this way if the court was moderate

 

[vesper]

BS
It’s no secret that the right and you have admitted to wanting a conservative court. You do favor a packed court. You should have never politicized from the beginning. If you want to honor the wishes of RBG, you would oppose Trump appointing another judge to the bench right now and you wouldn’t be for packing or politicizing the court, which you are. you’re simply picking and choosing what she says, and pretending you’re not a hypocrite. Roll the tape on Graham and McConnell. Your whole party is nothing but a pack of liars and hypocrites.

Ignorance is not bliss.

 

[SheWolf]

Ignorance is not bliss.

I am not so ignorant to think Trump is draining the swamp

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Republicans have bragged for 5 years about packing the court.

So 5 years ago the republicans added supreme court judges increasing the number to 9. WOW. How many did they have to add? How many were there before the republicans packed the court? We need to change the history books to reflect this revelation.

 

[ClaraD]

So 5 years ago the republicans added supreme court judges increasing the number to 9. WOW. How many did they have to add? How many were there before the republicans packed the court? We need to change the history books to reflect this revelation.

you do not have to add on the end to pack a court...and it isn't just the Supreme Court...you cannot be that lack of focused...or perhaps you are....on purpose.

 

[ClaraD]

The court isn’t supposed to decide the law of the land. They are supposed to interpret the constitution. McConnell is an absolute scumbag for breaking the senate and not bringing anything up to vote. The Senate creates the laws, but it has failed under McConnell’s leadership. McConnell is seeking to politicize the courts in order to change the laws he refuses or can’t pass in senate. The GOP couldn’t vote away Obamacare, so they want the courts to dismantle it. They could try to pass a constitutional amendment for their pro life values, but instead, they have focused on politicizing the Supreme Court.

as for a ton of judges, the more judges, the less likely it would be to pack it full of liberals or conservatives. The court needs to be moderated. I don’t want a radical court.

maybe term limits would be better, idk, but the Supreme Court has already been politicized and damaged

indeed, I do not want a political Supreme Court. We need to institute requirements or minimum qualifications to be on the Supreme Court. Since it is such an important job we need to be focused on their decisions and experience...it should be a uniquely non partisan position.

 

[ClaraD]

Nine is a good number - enough differences of opinion, experience, and critical thinking.

Actually, we don't have enough justices, which makes it so high stake at this point and so few cases are heard, because it is only 9.