• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Progressives pledge to keep pushing Biden to expand court

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
16,260
Reaction score
8,991
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive

WASHINGTON (AP) — Since Joe Biden ran away with the Democratic presidential nomination in March, leading progressives have accepted him — sometimes grudgingly — as their party’s leader. But, in the final weeks of the campaign, the Supreme Court vacancy is threatening to inflame old divides.

Some activists on the left are pressing Biden to endorse expanding the number of high court justices should he win the White House and Democrats take control of the Senate. But Biden, who ran a relatively centrist primary campaign, hasn’t embraced those calls, worried they may intensify the nation’s partisan split.
=========================================================
I have mixed feelings. Let's see how it goes. Sometimes these hyper-conservative justices surprise us with their centrist & leftist decisions.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
22,152
Reaction score
7,562
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I am not in favor of expanding the SC. 9 Justices is plenty to make rulings. By adding more you just add more opinions. I do believe Congress should consider term limits to the SC.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
71,851
Reaction score
50,716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If enough of a consensus of Democratic Congresspeople pass a bill to expand the courts then I think he'll sign it.

Besides, I think Biden is smart enough to figure out that if the court isn't expanded, 100% of his agenda will be blocked.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
21,051
Reaction score
18,584
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It is a terrible idea, one that will end up tossed into today's political climate of one upping each other only to find the purpose of the Supreme Court further degraded from the shit show we already see today.

11, 13, or more begs for an even bigger mess.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
71,851
Reaction score
50,716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It is a terrible idea, one that will end up tossed into today's political climate of one upping each other only to find the purpose of the Supreme Court further degraded from the shit show we already see today.

11, 13, or more begs for an even bigger mess.
We're in that mess now. Even if Democrats occupy every seat of the House, the Senate and the White House, the courts are a firewall for literally every legislative and policy decision Democrats want. That includes voting rights, EPA regulation, climate change and health care plans. All DOA.
 
Last edited:

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
22,152
Reaction score
7,562
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If enough of a consensus of Democratic Congresspeople pass a bill to expand the courts then I think he'll sign it.

Besides, I think Biden is smart enough to figure out that if the court isn't expanded, 100% of his agenda will be blocked.
Why would it be blocked if it doesn't violate the Constitution or laws. We all know Congress is dysfunctional. imo, most members are putting Party ahead of what is good for the country.
 

Chillfolks

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
8,291
Reaction score
3,966
Location
VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

WASHINGTON (AP) — Since Joe Biden ran away with the Democratic presidential nomination in March, leading progressives have accepted him — sometimes grudgingly — as their party’s leader. But, in the final weeks of the campaign, the Supreme Court vacancy is threatening to inflame old divides.

Some activists on the left are pressing Biden to endorse expanding the number of high court justices should he win the White House and Democrats take control of the Senate. But Biden, who ran a relatively centrist primary campaign, hasn’t embraced those calls, worried they may intensify the nation’s partisan split.
=========================================================
I have mixed feelings. Let's see how it goes. Sometimes these hyper-conservative justices surprise us with their centrist & leftist decisions.

Stacking the court is a bad idea IMO. A better solution and one that I think cpuld have enough bipartisan support to makeba reality would be placing term limits on all federally appointed judges. I'm undecided if it should be a sliding scale depending on levels and time, if ot should be a limit of total time served, or a combination of the two.

I don't want each new president who has the votes to continually add justices to the Supreme as a never ending pissing contest.
 

Rogue Valley

Say Her Name - Breonna Taylor
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
54,256
Reaction score
38,730
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'll have to think further on it.

That said, what the GOP is doing now is just wrong.
 

MaryP

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2018
Messages
1,721
Reaction score
632
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Too many cooks spoil the broth. Nine is already a lot to pull together into consensus. The work put into those decisions is enormous. I think a better idea would be to stop viewing appointments with such a ferociously partisan eye. The Court is supposed to be D.C.'s one bastion of nonpartisan sanity, above the fray, so to speak. I realize that's the ideal, but ideals have a function in our society and it's about time our leaders remembered it.
 

Roadvirus

Heading North
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Messages
16,121
Reaction score
7,268
Location
Tennessee, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Biden knows that most voters see the Democrat/SCOTUS Packing for what it is: Abuse of power to further their agenda

THAT is why he isn't saying a damn thing about it.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
71,851
Reaction score
50,716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Biden knows that most voters see the Democrat/SCOTUS Packing for what it is: Abuse of power to further their agenda

THAT is why he isn't saying a damn thing about it.
Is adding seats to the court illegal?
 

Chillfolks

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
8,291
Reaction score
3,966
Location
VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why would it be blocked if it doesn't violate the Constitution or laws. We all know Congress is dysfunctional. imo, most members are putting Party ahead of what is good for the country.
Because many people believe that the Supreme judge will fall in line and advance the parties agenda. Those same people tend to favor packing the courts hoping once the pendulum of power shifts those added justices can stop the opposing parties agenda.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
71,851
Reaction score
50,716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, but people know why they want to do it. They want SCOTUS to be their rubber stamp. It's "**** that checks and balances" with the Democrats.
If it's not illegal then it's not abuse of power.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
71,851
Reaction score
50,716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why am i not surprised that you aren't getting it....
Abuse of power is a legal term, yet you admitted that adding court seats isn't illegal. There isn't anything else to get.
 

Demon

Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2019
Messages
219
Reaction score
95
Location
Colorado
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I wasn't for it until the republicans wouldn't vote on Garland, and now insist that they have to vote on Ginsburg's open seat. I think they should add 4 new justices.
 

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
14,035
Reaction score
4,665
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I have mixed feelings. Let's see how it goes. Sometimes these hyper-conservative justices surprise us with their centrist & leftist decisions.
Sorry, I strongly disagree. One out of hundreds of rulings surprising you does not change the issue.
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
39,701
Reaction score
22,631
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If enough of a consensus of Democratic Congresspeople pass a bill to expand the courts then I think he'll sign it.

Besides, I think Biden is smart enough to figure out that if the court isn't expanded, 100% of his agenda will be blocked.
The only way it works in the long run is they do (and are able to) then immediately pass legislation requiring that all future changes to the court are by supermajority, AND that the statute saying this itself cannot be altered without a supermajority.

Anything else and it guarantees that the GOP does the same damn thing when it can. In fact, i wouldn't be surprised if they DO do it, even if we don't. They'll say "Democrats talked about expanding the court so it's OK that we're doing it now". Only a slight modification on the Garland maneuver.

Hell, admit PR and D.C. to boot. I've had enough of their (GOP) shit.


Now, I've had the point argued that this might lead to "one party rule." I don't see that as any certainty. It definitely is a power grab, but one to restore the situation to a more fair setting, not a power grab for the sake of a power grab. The latter is what the GOP is doing. And quite frankly I'm tired of watching the Democrats get kicked in the balls, then announce that they've got to not play dirty or else they'll be sledgehammered in the balls in retaliation.

Enough of letting the GOP walk over America.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
71,851
Reaction score
50,716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The only way it works in the long run is they do (and are able to) then immediately pass legislation requiring that all future changes to the court are by supermajority, AND that the statute saying this itself cannot be altered without a supermajority.

Anything else and it guarantees that the GOP does the same damn thing when it can. In fact, i wouldn't be surprised if they DO do it, even if we don't. They'll say "Democrats talked about expanding the court so it's OK that we're doing it now". Only a slight modification on the Garland maneuver.
That really does sound like a power grab to me, so I'm not a fan of that approach. I'm much more of a fan of increasing voter rights, eliminating voter suppression, making voting a national holiday and eliminating gerrymandering. HR1 contains these and a host of other voter rights measures. The effect of this is that Republicans will have to run elections based on their arguments and not on choosing (and eliminating) their voters.

When you add court seats and pass HR1 (it's the additional court seats that prevent HR1 from dying in the courts), you prevent Republican majorities because, as we all know, Republican positions are unpopular across the population.

Hell, admit PR and D.C. to boot. I've had enough of their (GOP) shit.
Those are a part of HR1. From the bill:

(j) Stakeholder participation.—In carrying out its duties, the Task Force shall consult with the governments of American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands.


Now, I've had the point argued that this might lead to "one party rule." I don't see that as any certainty. It definitely is a power grab, but one to restore the situation to a more fair setting, not a power grab for the sake of a power grab. The latter is what the GOP is doing. And quite frankly I'm tired of watching the Democrats get kicked in the balls, then announce that they've got to not play dirty or else they'll be sledgehammered in the balls in retaliation.

Enough of letting the GOP walk over America.
It's only "one party rule" if Republicans allow it to be. They could, for example, be in power by successfully persuading the American public about the superiority of their ideas, which of course they don't have to do presently because they cheat in elections.
 

Athanasius68

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
15,264
Reaction score
2,512
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If enough of a consensus of Democratic Congresspeople pass a bill to expand the courts then I think he'll sign it.

Besides, I think Biden is smart enough to figure out that if the court isn't expanded, 100% of his agenda will be blocked.
Perhaps-- but either way its the progressives who propose to overhaul the constitutional system to get what they want.
 

Aunt Antifa

Hunter of my heart
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
8,616
Reaction score
3,341
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
If enough of a consensus of Democratic Congresspeople pass a bill to expand the courts then I think he'll sign it.

Besides, I think Biden is smart enough to figure out that if the court isn't expanded, 100% of his agenda will be blocked.
I was pretty disappointed when Joe finally crushed Bernie and Liz. I have been super impressed since securing the nom. I think Biden gets it. I believe him when he says Charlottesville drove him. He’s old, he has nothing left to earn or prove. He really didn’t need this. I think you’re right - he’s going to accept the will of the voters, and I think..maybe...if we could prove it, that’s what he would like too. His fury at Trump has been targeted and earned.
 

Aunt Antifa

Hunter of my heart
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
8,616
Reaction score
3,341
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Perhaps-- but either way its the progressives who propose to overhaul the constitutional system to get what they want.
The constitution does not limit the # of justices. Ya’ll can’t scream about how Trump and co are just doing their constitutional duty by lying to us but Dems are wrecking the country when it’s our turn.

And it’s gonna be our turn.
 

Athanasius68

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
15,264
Reaction score
2,512
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The only way it works in the long run is they do (and are able to) then immediately pass legislation requiring that all future changes to the court are by supermajority, AND that the statute saying this itself cannot be altered without a supermajority.

Anything else and it guarantees that the GOP does the same damn thing when it can. In fact, i wouldn't be surprised if they DO do it, even if we don't. They'll say "Democrats talked about expanding the court so it's OK that we're doing it now". Only a slight modification on the Garland maneuver.

Hell, admit PR and D.C. to boot. I've had enough of their (GOP) shit.


Now, I've had the point argued that this might lead to "one party rule." I don't see that as any certainty. It definitely is a power grab, but one to restore the situation to a more fair setting, not a power grab for the sake of a power grab. The latter is what the GOP is doing. And quite frankly I'm tired of watching the Democrats get kicked in the balls, then announce that they've got to not play dirty or else they'll be sledgehammered in the balls in retaliation.

Enough of letting the GOP walk over America.

The GOP isn't proposing to overhaul the Constitutional system to gain and maintain power.
The Progressives are proposing a power-grab to grab, and then maintain, power.
It is, of course, far more dangerous for the country than any of the fantasies that are projected about Trump.
And its correct to be called out as such.
 
Top Bottom