P
ProVobis
Guest
No, they took the extra step of dropping the requirement to 50 for SC justices.
Let’s hope the Dems don’t lower it further.
Let’s hope the Dems don’t lower it further.
- Status
D
dochawk
Guest
I have never heard a claim that past changes in size were packing before, nor any background material for this.
The court did used to be 10, briefly, but has been 9 for a century and a half. (when reduced in size by law, all ten remained; the next vacancy didn’t produce an appointment).
Initially at six, the justices literally “rode the circuit,” hearing cases in various locations in their circuits as trial judges. Eventually, Congress created the “circuit courts” [nka “court of appeal”], and the District Courts (i.e., federal trial judges today).
Occasionally, a USSC justice actually sits in a district to hear a couple of cases, even today/
Anyway, AFAIK, all past changes in size (as opposed to FDR’s attempt) were about managing the load of the court, not its rulings. (Jefferson tried to impeach for that purpose, and failed, and to the best of my knowledge, no serious attempts to tamper with the court until FDR’s ).
I saw an intriguing oped a couple of days ago suggesting that eight would be a better size than nine because it could deadlock, and would need more than a raw, ongoing, majority to make a ruling.
(note: there hasn’t been an actual majority on the court for quite some time, as it has three blocks, not two. Even assuming ACB is confirmed, it will create a 4-3-2 split, not a 6-3 majoity).
In another vein, I toy with the idea of allowing an appointment each presidential term, which could push the court to larger than it’s nominal size. In that case, a death or retirement might not create the opportunity for another appointment, letting the court drift back down. [note: this is currently speculation; i am not advocating this at this time
Frankly, I’m far more concerned about the rule of law than which way the court rules in a particular case. In fact, I categorically reject the use of the outcome or consequence of a ruling as bsis to evaluate the ruling.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
The Democrat Court-Packers (or at least the Democrat people who refuse to deny they will Court-Pack)
continue with the talking point of REDEFINING Court-packing.
Those actions say (to me at least in the setting today) . . . . Democrat Court-Packing. (If they had the chance.)
Here is another leftist Court-Packer attempt to fool the voter (Durbin this time with the same redefined talking point that Coons was using to fool voters) . . . .
Very disappointed (not surprised though) that Chuck Todd didn’t just ask the obvious question:
"Senator Durbin. Would you support expanding the United States Supreme Court to MORE than nine members if you don’t get your way with the Amy Coney Barrett appointment?"
continue with the talking point of REDEFINING Court-packing.
Those actions say (to me at least in the setting today) . . . . Democrat Court-Packing. (If they had the chance.)
Here is another leftist Court-Packer attempt to fool the voter (Durbin this time with the same redefined talking point that Coons was using to fool voters) . . . .
Very disappointed (not surprised though) that Chuck Todd didn’t just ask the obvious question:
"Senator Durbin. Would you support expanding the United States Supreme Court to MORE than nine members if you don’t get your way with the Amy Coney Barrett appointment?"
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Turley: Court-packing would be a 'blunder of the first order' by Biden | On Air Videos | Fox News
As Hannity states (some of these, I added others) . . .
Court Packing.
16 year-olds voting.
Prisoners voting.
Felons voting.
Ridding America of the Electoral College.
Refusing to have voter ID when their power allows them to.
Adding mechanisms that make election fraud easy.
Statehood for DC.
Statehood for Puerto Rico.
Using Government Agencies to spy on political opponents.
Fake pretexts to impeach a President.
Amnesty for illegal aliens.
Basically radically changing the country so they can have power.
These are just some of the gimmicks the leftist Democrats openly assert.
Democrats cannot win national elections based on their ideas.
Last edited:
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
One thing the Dems are good at doing is redefining words to fit their agenda.
Global warming- climate change
Abortion- reproductive right
Court packing- Republicans appointing scotus well within their duly elected right.However,since the Dems are unhappy with these appointments is court packing.
Global warming- climate change
Abortion- reproductive right
Court packing- Republicans appointing scotus well within their duly elected right.However,since the Dems are unhappy with these appointments is court packing.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Yep. Lot’s of gimmicks to try to increase their power.
The national left’s ideas cannot stand by themselves.
At least when exposed. (That is PART of what the social media censorship is all about. Now the destruction of free association is desired by the left [although they wouldn’t put it that way] via selective “lockdowns” - ignoring them with rioting, enforcing them with worship of Jesus Christ for example).
Last edited:
M
MikeInVA
Guest
Maybe ask the Puerto Ricans? They’ve voted on statehood numerous times and have never approved of it.
X
Xystus
Guest
I guess we need to elect Joe Biden to find out if Joe Biden supports court-packing
No Thanks!
T
Theo520
Guest
The size was changed to serve a political purpose, civil war era. FDR almost did the same.
I don’t support Biden’s probable move to do so, I just think we’ll survive it.
R
RidgeSprinter
Guest
Are you sure on that one?
C
Cathoholic
Guest
The Democrat desire to Court Pack, is another Democrat gimmick to steal power they cannot get from the voters.
Court Packing - Kamala Harris Said She Was ‘Absolutely’ Open to Court Packing in 2019 World News
Last edited:
M
MikeInVA
Guest
I stand corrected. They voted against in 2012, and boycotted the vote in 2017. The bottom line is that the people of Puerto Rico have not asked to become a state.
R
RidgeSprinter
Guest
No, the vote was still held in 2017 despite a boycott.
A boycott means nothing at the polls. Just like it means nothing here in the US.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Bottom line the vote for statehood passed.
The opinion poll before the vote?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Bottom line the simple majority wanted statehood.
F
F_Marturana
Guest
Currently the Supreme Court has three members appointed by Democratic presidents:
Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor
The rest, Gorsuch, Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Kavanaugh were appointed by Republicans.
Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor
The rest, Gorsuch, Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Kavanaugh were appointed by Republicans.
R
RhodesianSon
Guest
Ginsburg could have retired under Obama and let him pick her replacement, but she chose not to :man_shrugging:t2:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Biden said Court Packing is a “boneheaded idea” . . . back in the early 1980’s.
Now he seems to be embracing (or at least won’t distance himself) from such “boneheadedness”.
Now he seems to be embracing (or at least won’t distance himself) from such “boneheadedness”.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
More Democrat REDEFINING of the term Court-Packing meant to fool the voter.
Last edited:
M
Montrose
Guest
I am British and don’t live in the US but I am curious as to what all the fuss is about. Since Trump became President it has been his aim to have a majority of Republican judges on the Supreme Court so why should it be an issue if the democrats decide to do the same?
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Montrose. . . .
Montrose. What do you think “Court-Packing” is?
Last edited:
- Status