J
JimG
Guest
If one congress expanded the court, I suppose a subsequent congress could shrink it. I don’t know if having a layoff of justices is feasible, though.
- Status
F
Freddy
Guest
The president specifically nominating conservative or liberal judges is a problem in itself (why not a bipartisan vote?). But a liberal president removing a conservative judge? I’d take to the streets myself!
G
Gorgias
Guest
Got it.
Has Biden said he’d do this? (Nope.)
Have some individuals on the left called for it? (Yep.)
This isn’t something that a president can make happen.
They’d set a new number, and not fill a vacated position until fewer than that number were on the court.
Checks and balances. It’s part of our system of government. Nominations come from the executive branch.
R
Rasoleil
Guest
In only 8 months 240,000 COVID deaths and counting…“Pro-Life”? Seriously?
J
JimG
Guest
I think that up until the Bork nomination, it was pretty much a bipartisan process.
F
Freddy
Guest
Just a heads up - I’m not American but I am a Biden ‘supporter’. But he was asked a number of times if he’d consider it and never gave an emphatic answer. That tells me that he hadn’t discounted it. Correction: I should use the present tense: He hasn’t discounted it.JimG:
Got it.
Has Biden said he’d do this? (Nope.).
I don’t think he should. If you think you’re behind in the game then you don’t look to change the rules.
G
Gorgias
Guest
That tells me merely that he wanted the votes of people who would like to see him do it, and wasn’t willing to throw those votes away by saying “nope”…
F
Freddy
Guest
A valid point. But I don’t think he’s that sort of guy. But then again, I’d rather hope that he was the sort of guy that wouldn’t consider it anyway.Freddy:
That tells me merely that he wanted the votes of people who would like to see him do it, and wasn’t willing to throw those votes away by saying “nope”…
E
EssentialBeing
Guest
Please help us understand the angst people seem to have with SCOTUS & the suggestion of stacking.
- Is it not already staked to favor one party or the other at any given time?
- What would be the difference between 9 members or 29 members?
- If we increased the numbers, would it not provide a larger more balanced cross section of decisions, that may better reflect the hundreds of millions it impacts on?
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
The Supreme Court isn’t intended to be a representative body – Congress is. The SCOTUS is intended to review cases at law, not "reflect [the opinions of] the citizenry.
Last edited:
E
EssentialBeing
Guest
Yes that’s right, but I mentioned “decisions” not opinions of the citizenry. You make a good point regarding it not being a representative body, just a thought, is not justice in the interest of the people it decides for?
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
I think that both you and Gorgias are correct. A decision they make must, for example, comply with the constitution. But then again, one person’s interpretation of the constitution may differ depending on your personal viewpoint. The second ammendment is a good example.Gorgias:
Yes that’s right, but I mentioned “decisions” not opinions of the citizenry. You make a good point regarding it not being a representative body, just a thought, is not justice in the interest of the people it decides for?
E
EssentialBeing
Guest
Thank you @Freddy you raise a great example. The issue seems much more difficult when we dig a little further. I think I will have to start another thread as I am sure there will be many different views to digest. 
L
LilyM
Guest
Obviously it could easily be a problem if you had, say, 8 or 10 or 20 new judges all coming on board at the same time, and all appointed by the party currently in power. Ordinarily, the judges are replaced more gradually as they retire or pass away, and not always at a high enough rate that the court reflects the party currently in power at all times.
W
whatistrue
Guest
There were, I think, very good reasons for doing it that way. If you look at the terms of the various positions that make up the government (and understanding that this is somewhat what was envisioned rather than exactly what we have now), you have the House at 2 years, so they have to keep up with the will of the people, the Senate at 6 so they are somewhat insulated from “the fickle public” and can do things more based on what is good for the country rather than what is good for their re-election. Moving to the Executive, the President’s term splits the difference so that they can grow to fill the office and not have to constantly campaign, but there is an opportunity for more turnover. Then the Executive Branch officers, such as department heads and such, serve “at the pleasure of the President” so they really only have to keep one person happy to keep their jobs once the President and Senate give them. Now the Judicial, including the Supreme Court and all lower Federal Courts, keep their positions “during good behavior” so that they are completely insulated from any need to follow politics at all and can make their decisions based solely on the Constitution and the various laws as they interpret them. Also keep in mind that the ideal Justice is one who is expert in the law and well respected throughout the legal system with no political axe to grind. And I think that by and large, with some notable exceptions that I think I will keep to myself, that is pretty close to what we have gotten historically. In my opinion, when we are talking about the fundamental “law of the land”, i.e. the Constitution, the prime ingredient needed, after legal acumen of the individual Justices, is the stability of the Court as a whole, which is what lifetime appointments tend to give us.
F
Freddy
Guest
Great explanation. It does make sense the way you described it. Nothwithstanding the notable exceptions…Freddy:
There were, I think, very good reasons for doing it that way.
D
Dracarys
Guest
President Trump is not a perfect person. None of us are. When you look at what he actually did he is one of the best presidents we have ever had. He created an economy where personal incomes increased and unemployment fell. He still gets no credit for brokering peace among countries in the middle east. He lowered prescription drug prices. He also gave a lot of assistance to minority colleges. If Catholics had objectively looked at President Trump instead of participating in reactionary dislike we may now still have a pro life and pro economy president. This is quite a shame as I read what Biden will do to this great country.
I don’t see that. He wants to codify Roe vs Wade. He has no problem with partial birth abortion. He will have taxpayers pay for it all. He picked a running mate that wants abortion any time for any reason, and supports Planned Parenthood. Pro abortion groups love Harris.
P
pnewton
Guest
He twice voted against it and has never voted for it.
As to what others say he will do, since the election is over, I prefer to wait and see what happens.
Last edited:
D
Dracarys
Guest
Because I want to know how a candidate stands on an issue before I consider voting for him. Saying I don’t have a right to know is condescending and does not give voters the information they need.
- Status