Left wants to pack the Supreme Court

  • Thread starter Thread starter YHWH_Christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One way is currently legal and is in fact an obligation mandated by the Constitution.

The other way would need to be made legal, which would in itself be legal, but is not currently legal.

The “terms” (sic, since we are talking about only one term) are/is important because the misuse is being used to equivocate: to confuse people about what some Ds have said and to tar the Rs/Trump with what is basically a lie.
 
Annie said:
One way is currently legal and is in fact an obligation mandated by the Constitution.

The other way would need to be made legal, which would in itself be legal, but is not currently legal.

The “terms” (sic, since we are talking about only one term) are/is important because the misuse is being used to equivocate: to confuse people about what some Ds have said and to tar the Rs/Trump with what is basically a lie.
Click to expand...
The end result is the same in both cases. What you call the process makes no difference to the entire universe.
The aim in both is to legally get a majority on the Supreme Court so whingeing about what it is called is a waste of time. Who cares.
 
Jeanne_S said:
Nope…Try again
Click to expand...
I think you are way behind on this topic.
What term is used is irrelevant as both ways end up with a legally achieved majority on the Supreme Court.
Who cares if Republicans call the Democrat way court-packing. How does that change the end result.
 
I know. I am saying that in this case Trump gets a majority through a vacancy arising. If the democrats “court-pack” as republicans like to call it so what. In both cases each side gets it’s majority.
As an outsider I don’t see any issue with this.
 
Annie said:
Just because a result is the same does not mean the process is the same. Court-packing refers to the process by which the result is obtained.
Click to expand...
I know and again, so what? Who cares? The result is the same.
 
Annie said:
The term court-packing is not some neologism the Rs came up with; it has been used at least since the late 1930s when FDR floated a plan to do it.
Click to expand...
Let me repeat again. Who cares?

Trump gets his majority through filling vacancies.
If the Democrats win the election they can get a majority by increasing the number of judges if they get a Bill passed.

So what??
 
The main issue is once this can of worms is opened the Supreme Court will cease to be a functioning branch of government. Every time control of congress changes and the presidency matches that party can pass another bill, expand the court, and have their way. Keeping with tradition and not doing so is the last chance of a constitutionally limited government. Once the Supreme Court can be expanded ad infinitum it will just be a facade.
 
Last edited:
The Dems have a habit of nominating judges that vote on party ideology as opposed to most of the judges appointed by Conservatives.They are texturalists in they way they view cases.
 
Jeanne_S said:
The Dems have a habit of nominating judges that vote on party ideology as opposed to most of the judges appointed by Conservatives
Click to expand...
Reps have the same habit of nominating judges that vote on party ideology.

Reps party ideology is to overturn Roe Vs Wade.
They nominate judges with that ideology in mind.
Let us not pretend it is not so.
 
Guess you haven’t bothered to pay attention to ACB’s judicial hearings
 
RidgeSprinter . . .
They nominate judges with that ideology in mind.
Click to expand...
Not enough for me but . . . .

Yeah. The same idealogy as the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Montrose . . . .
“How is Congress passing a Bill abuse of power?”
Click to expand...
If you don’t know I suggest you ask Biden who not only knows, but understands the people (for the most part) know too.

Which is part of WHY he has to attempt to try to fool the voters on this (and so many other) issue(s). Because the voters here understand how Court-Packing is an abuse of power.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top