• 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!

Elizabeth Warren calls for expansion of Supreme Court, saying current court is a threat to democracy

Gateman_Wen said:
The current supreme court is a laughingstock. They have no credibility whatsoever.

Adding judges will not change that. Bart O'kavenaugh lied under oath ,na should be removed for cause. Either goresuch or Barrett is illegitimate by the GOP's Own reasoning and should be removed. Joe Biden should nominate replacement immediately.
Click to expand...

Credibility isn't a concern.

They hand down decisions.

Unless you are nullify person, you will live by the decisons (and so will I) like them or not.
 
Gateman_Wen said:
The current supreme court is a laughingstock. They have no credibility whatsoever.

Adding judges will not change that. Bart O'kavenaugh lied under oath ,na should be removed for cause. Either goresuch or Barrett is illegitimate by the GOP's Own reasoning and should be removed. Joe Biden should nominate replacement immediately.
Click to expand...
Kavanaugh has lied multiple times under oath. That is what made him the darling of the one term mistake and the GOP.

Here are all the times Kavanaugh is suspected of misleading the Senate​

https://www.businessinsider.com/all...eading-or-false-statements-under-oath-2018-10
 
HikerGuy83 said:
Credibility isn't a concern.

They hand down decisions.

Unless you are nullify person, you will live by the decisons (and so will I) like them or not.
Click to expand...
Of course the credibility of the court is a concern. Their power depends on it.

Long before the U.S. Supreme Court launched its new term Monday, it was clear that more than the usual lower court rulings would be on trial this term for several reasons. First, Americans are seeing the nine justices less and less like careful, impartial and independent interpreters of the law and more like political hacks. Don’t take our word for it: That’s what the latest Gallup polling numbers show. Public approval of the court is down to 40%, the lowest ever recorded by Gallup since it began asking the question in 2000. But second, the six-member conservative majority appears ready to do some serious rewriting of U.S. laws, beginning with women’s reproductive rights and likely extending to Second Amendment and religious rights, as well. Is anyone shocked by that? It’s what President Donald Trump promised with his appointments, and it’s what other leading Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, have been counting on for years.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinio...0211004-77w2ksar45gjrog5s2uwsx56ri-story.html
 
iguanaman said:
Of course the credibility of the court is a concern. Their power depends on it.

Long before the U.S. Supreme Court launched its new term Monday, it was clear that more than the usual lower court rulings would be on trial this term for several reasons. First, Americans are seeing the nine justices less and less like careful, impartial and independent interpreters of the law and more like political hacks. Don’t take our word for it: That’s what the latest Gallup polling numbers show. Public approval of the court is down to 40%, the lowest ever recorded by Gallup since it began asking the question in 2000. But second, the six-member conservative majority appears ready to do some serious rewriting of U.S. laws, beginning with women’s reproductive rights and likely extending to Second Amendment and religious rights, as well. Is anyone shocked by that? It’s what President Donald Trump promised with his appointments, and it’s what other leading Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, have been counting on for years.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinio...0211004-77w2ksar45gjrog5s2uwsx56ri-story.html
Click to expand...

Their power depends on it ?

Please tell me how that works.

If they are unpopular, their decisions don't count ?

Pray tell....please share.
 
iguanaman said:
So you don't care if he lied or not. That's what I thought.
Click to expand...

In truth....no.

For one reason. He actually does what he says he'll do.

If you had shot him down, Barrett was the next up.....she sails through.

Then when Ginsburg dies, you get a John Bircher who will screw you for 50 years.

You'd be begging for him at that point.
 
HikerGuy83 said:
If Roe fails, it goes to the states where most will make it legal.
Click to expand...
The court will then declare personhood for the fetus and abortion will be illegal in all States. You don't think they will be satisfied with a few States do you? They are currently declaring that the State has a vested interest in the fetus so a woman's right to privacy is vacated. That means abortion is murder. You think some States will be allowed to murder and some won't?
 
iguanaman said:
The court will then declare personhood for the fetus and abortion will be illegal in all States. You don't think they will be satisfied with a few States do you? That are declaring that the State has a vested interest in the fetus so a woman's right to privacy is vacated. That means abortion is murder.
Click to expand...

You do realize that abortion was legal in several states before Roe ?

Who is "they" ?
 
Gateman_Wen said:
The current supreme court is a laughingstock. They have no credibility whatsoever.

Adding judges will not change that. Bart O'kavenaugh lied under oath ,na should be removed for cause. Either goresuch or Barrett is illegitimate by the GOP's Own reasoning and should be removed. Joe Biden should nominate replacement immediately.
Click to expand...
thank you ........
 
HikerGuy83 said:
You do realize that abortion was legal in several states before Roe ?

Who is "they" ?
Click to expand...
They are the 5 members of the court that voted to allow the Texas law to stand. You do know it has no exceptions for rape or incest. There is no doubt that they will grant personhood to fetuses as their ruling already reflects that belief.
 
HikerGuy83 said:
Credibility isn't a concern.

They hand down decisions.

Unless you are nullify person, you will live by the decisons (and so will I) like them or not.
Click to expand...
Credibility isn't a concern?

What a ridiculous thing to say.
 
bave said:
If Moreover, the SCOTUS has in the past reversed previously bad decisions as well. That's what courts do sometimes.
Click to expand...
The court has reversed itself in the past but it’s (almost) always to increase rights not remove them.
 
NatMorton said:
Changes to the Constitution are a legislative process; more specifically a new Constitutionally protected right can (or should) only be made by the express approval of two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states.
Click to expand...
What do you do with the 9th and 10th in the approach you suggest?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
She goes too far, as usual.

I would impeach Gorsuch, replace him with a liberal, and leave the balance of the court 5/4 for the conservatives. Roberts can be trusted to torpedo anything too right wing.
 
Buckeyes85 said:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

Horrible wording. Powers can't be reserved to A or B without stating how that is to be arbitrated.

The United States established the power of space travel. Does it therefore follow that it can be prohibited to the People? Of course not.
 
trixare4kids said:
Lol I'm wondering why she stopped there... Why not two or three dozen?
Click to expand...

Two more would redress the appointment stolen off Obama. It wouldn't necessarily be 'inflationary' since conservatives would retain a majority.
Four more would tilt the balance to liberals. It would be 'inflationary' because the precedent set is different. It's offensive in itself, creating a 7/6 majority.
Five (or any odd number) more is just plain stupid. When the court deadlocks, the lower court decision holds. I think the lower court can revise it, but in any case they're a lower court.
 
Spirit of The Millennium said:
Two more would redress the appointment stolen off Obama. It wouldn't necessarily be 'inflationary' since conservatives would retain a majority.
Four more would tilt the balance to liberals. It would be 'inflationary' because the precedent set is different. It's offensive in itself, creating a 7/6 majority.
Five (or any odd number) more is just plain stupid. When the court deadlocks, the lower court decision holds. I think the lower court can revise it, but in any case they're a lower court.
Click to expand...

Oh waaah. If the left held the court majority, there'd be no complaints about stacking it now.
 
trixare4kids said:
Oh waaah. If the left held the court majority, there'd be no complaints about stacking it now.
Click to expand...

"They did it first, so it's OK" doesn't really hold up when they haven't done it yet.

Remember how McConnell tried to blame Biden for McConnell's own decision to blackball Merrick Garland? He called it the "Biden rule" just because Biden threatened it on the floor years before.

"They were going to do it first, so we had to do it in self defense" is craven hypocrisy. Let's leave that for the Republicans.
 
Spirit of The Millennium said:
Horrible wording. Powers can't be reserved to A or B without stating how that is to be arbitrated.

The United States established the power of space travel. Does it therefore follow that it can be prohibited to the People? Of course not.
Click to expand...
Not following your 2nd point, but as to your first, I disagree with your approach.

When "A" has all the power and is granting select authority to "B", there should be no confusion on how a dispute of authority is decided.
The 9th and the portion of the 10th I quoted were put into the constitution specifically because some of the framers said: "You know, if we list this bill of rights of things we find particularly important, people will later argue: 'only those things listed in the bill of rights are granted to the people' when in fact the exact opposite was intended." The proponents of the bill of rights said: that's not going to happen but if it makes you happy, lets add these two clauses to make things clear.
 
trixare4kids said:
Oh waaah. If the left held the court majority, there'd be no complaints about stacking it now.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you would take the same cavalier position if a republican held the white house but could not get a supreme court nominee even up for a hearing or vote because the democrats held the senate for 4 years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom