N.Y. House Dems to introduce bill that would add four Supreme Court seats

[VySky]

Here we go. And senile Joe wouldn’t answer this question
——

A pair of New York congressmen are among a group of Democrats who plan to introduce a bill that would add four seats to the Supreme Court — the opening salvo in what promises to be a brutal legislative fight with conservatives over the high bench’s political balance.

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[Outlook]

Here we go. And senile Joe wouldn’t answer this question
——

A pair of New York congressmen are among a group of Democrats who plan to introduce a bill that would add four seats to the Supreme Court — the opening salvo in what promises to be a brutal legislative fight with conservatives over the high bench’s political balance.

MSN

www.msn.com

I would be surprised if this gets passed, but now a days, you never know.

 

[Yakshi]

Not answering the question was the correct move. Not answering controversial questions often is the correct move.

Welcome to American politics.

 

[Helix]

i'm not thrilled about the court packing stuff that is probably going to happen. we are at a no holds barred / win at all costs precipice, and i don't see that ending well.

 

[Fishking]

Here we go. And senile Joe wouldn’t answer this question
——

A pair of New York congressmen are among a group of Democrats who plan to introduce a bill that would add four seats to the Supreme Court — the opening salvo in what promises to be a brutal legislative fight with conservatives over the high bench’s political balance.

MSN

www.msn.com

And when Republicans gain control again, I'd hope they would strip those seats, if it goes through. Further, it's possible that the action could be taken to court and the SCOTUS itself would rule against it. There is precedent so they have solid ground.

 

[Yakshi]

And when Republicans gain control again, I'd hope they would strip those seats, if it goes through. Further, it's possible that the action could be taken to court and the SCOTUS itself would rule against it. There is precedent so they have solid ground.

Even this conservative-leaning court would not rule against it. They do not have solid ground.

 

[Fishking]

Even this conservative-leaning court would not rule against it. They do not have solid ground.

Just because you say so doesn't make it true. This court packing shit has been tried before and there the same arguments were held and plenty called it unconstitutional. It wouldn't be difficult at all to make a case on separation of powers, as court-packing is an obvious move by the other branches to overtake the other.

 

[Yakshi]

Just because you say so doesn't make it true. This court packing shit has been tried before and there the same arguments were held and plenty called it unconstitutional. It wouldn't be difficult at all to make a case on separation of powers, as court-packing is an obvious move by the other branches to overtake the other.

You're right. Just because I say so doesn't make it true.

But in this case, it is true.

 

[99percenter]

Won't happen. Manchin already said no.

 

[Fishking]

You're right. Just because I say so doesn't make it true.

But in this case, it is true.

It really isn't. But keep telling yourself that. Your "nuh-uh" premise is really solid.

 

[Yakshi]

Won't happen. Manchin already said no.

I agree it's unlikely. But in the past Manchin has been known to say no before he said yes.

 

[AGENT J]

i'm not thrilled about the court packing stuff that is probably going to happen. we are at a no holds barred / win at all costs precipice, and i don't see that ending well.

Agreed!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
here's what I said in the other thread last week

I always liked the idea of 13 judges
12 associates (12 like a jury)
1 chief (like the judge)

BUT by no means would I want a "packed" court in any way, F that!

I hate the idea that we even label judges left-right-moderate etc and that they even participate in that labeling, they should avoid it as much as possible. If we are picking the right judges they should be above all that nonsense. . . . something else I would like to see stamped out are actually basic qualifications of a real judge . . .

I think other issues are more important right now like voting rights and gerrymandering etc

What could tie into this though that I think is also important is the idea that I think our checks and balances are way off and the grey area of presidential power is also off. So fixing that balance and eliminating locked government could very well encompass this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think we should have real requirements for SCOTUS also . . i mean its only the highest court in the land and technically one could be on it and not even have a degree
id like to see at least these requirements

Law degree
experience as a litigator for 5 years
experience as a sitting judge/magistrate for 7 years (at least 2 full years at a state level)
Minimum age 35

 

[Yakshi]

It really isn't. But keep telling yourself that. Your "nuh-uh" premise is really solid.

So is your "uh-huh!" premise, I guess. Article 3 of the Constitution does not set a specific number of Justices. The process of adding Justices is not difficult. The number has varied from 6 to 7 to 8 to 10, back down to 7, and then up to its current 9.

The historical precedent that you refer to is not on your side. Your separation of powers argument is weak. The Supreme Court has not determined its size. Congress has, via statute.

 

[bomberfox]

Maybe republicans shouldnt have stacked the courts *shrugs*.

 

[Yakshi]

Maybe republicans shouldnt have stacked the courts *shrugs*.

If it were Biden's top priority, it'd most likely happen. It'd cost a ton of political capital, and he'd have to give Manchin everything he wants.

Ultimately, however, I doubt it will happen, simply because I think that other issues are far more important to Biden.

Translation for Fox News Crowd: Biden's puppetmasters no likey likey. Deep State say no no.

 

[bomberfox]

If it were Biden's top priority, it'd most likely happen. It'd cost a ton of political capital, and he'd have to give Manchin everything he wants.

Ultimately, however, I doubt it will happen, simply because I think that other issues are far more important to Biden.

Translation for Fox News Crowd: Biden's puppetmasters no likey likey. Deep State say no no.

Haha. The translation made me laugh.

 

[Dayton3]

Maybe republicans shouldnt have stacked the courts *shrugs*.

They didn't.

 

[Yakshi]

They didn't.

Republicans did at the state level, succeeding in Georgia and Arizona.

Republicans failed in their plans to pack the state supreme courts furthermore in Florida, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania. Furthermore, Republicans failed to reduce the number of state supreme court justices in Montana and Washington state.

Democrats, for their part, failed to increase the justices on state supreme courts in South Carolina and Louisiana, and Democrats failed to unpack Alabama through attrition.

There is no requirement for a specific number of Supreme Court Justices on the United States Supreme Court. The number has varied quite a bit over the years, although we have remained at nine since 1869.

Personally, I like 51, but I'm willing to settle for 13.

 

[newpublius]

The bottom line is that court packing today will beget court packing tomorrow. Anytime a party wins the trifecta they will pack the court and remove whatever constitutional impediment might exist to check the authority of the new administration. It will forever hobble the judicial branch and render that branch perpetually illegitimate. The Republicans need to stand up and say, "You've gone too far and we're not going to let you go there" -- propose a counter bill allowing court packing along with permission for any state to secede which might object.

 

[eohrnberger]

The bottom line is that court packing today will beget court packing tomorrow. Anytime a party wins the trifecta they will pack the court and remove whatever constitutional impediment might exist to check the authority of the new administration. It will forever hobble the judicial branch and render that branch perpetually illegitimate. The Republicans need to stand up and say, "You've gone too far and we're not going to let you go there" -- propose a counter bill allowing court packing along with permission for any state to secede which might object.

Senate Republican introduces bill to hold Supreme Court at ...
https://www.foxnews.com › politics › republicans-introdu...
Jan 22, 2021 — Senate Republican introduces bill to hold Supreme Court at nine justices. 'A nine Justice court has worked for our country for more than 150 ...

 

[bubbabgone]

Here we go. And senile Joe wouldn’t answer this question
——

A pair of New York congressmen are among a group of Democrats who plan to introduce a bill that would add four seats to the Supreme Court — the opening salvo in what promises to be a brutal legislative fight with conservatives over the high bench’s political balance.

MSN

www.msn.com

You know it had to happen. Power begets power and the only power center that is currently lacking in their portfolio resides in the Supreme Court.
It's interesting to see that, along with the DC Statehood push, the D Party has no concern whatsoever that this obvious power grab will be honestly portrayed by our media for what it is.
Now why do you think that is?
If you answered "Because the media is already one of their power centers" you are correct.

 

[Cope]

And when Republicans gain control again, I'd hope they would strip those seats, if it goes through. Further, it's possible that the action could be taken to court and the SCOTUS itself would rule against it. There is precedent so they have solid ground.

What is the legal precedent of stripping a lifetime appointment?

I'd gather they would simply add more seats to be filled by the Republican admin ad nauseum until we are ll SCOTUS members!

Yes, I can't wait.

 

[eohrnberger]

You know it had to happen. Power begets power and the only power center that is currently lacking in their portfolio resides in the Supreme Court.
It's interesting to see that, along with the DC Statehood push, the D Party has no concern whatsoever that this obvious power grab will be honestly portrayed by our media for what it is.
Now why do you think that is?
If you answered "Because the media is already one of their power centers" you are correct.

Majority of lame stream media have abandoned any journalistic standards and integrity and are essentially Democrat political activists.
What's one of the totalitarian red flags?
When the media slavishly does one political party's bidding?

 

[Fishking]

What is the legal precedent of stripping a lifetime appointment?

I'd gather they would simply add more seats to be filled by the Republican admin ad nauseum until we are ll SCOTUS members!

Yes, I can't wait.

Seats can be taken away. You're not specifically stripping the person, but the seat.

 

[gbg3]

i'm not thrilled about the court packing stuff that is probably going to happen. we are at a no holds barred / win at all costs precipice, and i don't see that ending well.

I don't think there is any possible way this precipice can end well.