Nadler Urges Democrats to ‘Expand’ Supreme Court if GOP Fills Ginsburg Seat Before Inauguration

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cathoholic

Guest
Jerry. You Democrats floated this idea of expanding the Supreme Court BEFORE any of this came up.

My advice to President Trump:

Stop listening to The Federalist Society and appoint a real conservative judge.

.

Nadler Urges Democrats to ‘Expand’ Supreme Court if GOP Fills Ginsburg Seat Before Inauguration​

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) urged Democrats on Saturday to “immediately” mobilize to “expand” the Supreme Court if Republicans succeed in confirming a replacement for the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“If Sen. McConnell and [the] Senate GOP were to force through a nominee during the lame-duck session—before a new Senate and president can take office—then the incoming Senate should immediately move to expand the Supreme Court,” the New York lawmaker wrote on social media. . . .

. . . Nadler added in a follow-up message that “filling the SCOTUS vacancy during a lame-duck session, after the American people have voted for new leadership, is undemocratic and a clear violation of the public trust in elected officials.” . . .
Click to expand...
 

Ruth Bader Ginsberg Denounced Democrat Push to Stack Supreme Court​

11,814

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

AP Photo/Rebecca Gibian

AWR HAWKINS

19 Sep 2020

Footage from an interview with NPR shows the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg denouncing the Democrats’ push to stack the Supreme Court of the United States.

The video shows Ginsberg being asked about the number of justices on SCOTUS and she said, “There is no fixed number in the Constitution. So this court has had as few as five, as many as ten. Nine seems to be a good number, and it’s been that way for a long time.”

She added, “I have heard there are some on the Democrat side who would like to increase the number of judges.” She mentioned that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s wanted to stack SCOTUS, and she made clear she thought “it was a bad idea.”

Ginsberg addressed the problem of the court appearing partisan, then said, “If anything would make the court appear partisan, it would be…one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, it was only to enlarge the number of justices so we would have more people vote the way we wanted them to.’” . . .
Click to expand...
 
I agree with Ginsburg, not Nadler, on this. No need to stack the courts, but at least play fair in hearing the nominee at the appropriate time.
 
Court packing by either side is wrong. The Democrats need to get a grip. As do the Republicans.
 
PaulinVA said:
Court packing by either side is wrong. The Democrats need to get a grip. As do the Republicans.
Click to expand...
I think most Americans agree with this. The reason it is so divided, is Roe V Wade. That is it, and well, recent decisions on gay marriage and gay rights.

I do not understand how, Supreme Court has made law changes, that the people did not vote for. Now this is not new. It has crept in to the system.

What is the actual job of the Supreme Court? The reason they where established? We need to go there. But politicians see it as power. When in Fact the Supreme Court is there to balance power, not give power to one party or or the other.
 
Last edited:
Rockoh22 . . .
The reason it is so divided, is Roe V Wade. That is it, and well, recent decisions on gay marriage and gay rights.
Click to expand...
You hit it out of the park on this Rockoh22!
 
Anesti33 said:
What do you mean, it’s “wrong”? Unfair? Illegal? Immoral?
Click to expand...
It is an end run around the tradition of 2 and a half centuries. There are nine justices, and they should be the best legal minds available.
 
Last edited:
Nadler should have waited until after the elections to make such an earth-shattering statement. Now it’s sure to be a debate issue aimed at Biden.
 
Rockoh22 said:
The reason it is so divided, is Roe V Wade.
Click to expand...
You are right about that. R/W has become the end game but not necessarily a change in abortion legality on the national level. There is no talk on making abortion illegal by the SC AFAIK.
 
Last edited:
PaulinVA said:
It is an end run around the tradition of 2 and a half centuries. There are nine justices, and they should be the best legal minds available.
Click to expand...
Ummm, no. It was originally 6, then 5, then back to six. Once up to 10. It has been 9 since the late 19th century. Hardly 250 years of tradition.
 
Last edited:
I’m not surprised Nadler would say that, considering his actions over the last few years. It’s power at any expense. It sounds like banana republic stuff, which if happened would likely result in which ever political party comes into power will look to pack the courts in their favor.
 
Suudy said:
Ummm, no. It was originally 6, then 5, then back to six. Once up to 10. It has been 9 since the late 19th century. Hardly 250 years of tradition.
Click to expand...
Good point! I didn’t know. But, packing to dilute one ideology or another is wrong.
 
PaulinVA said:
40.png
Suudy:
Ummm, no. It was originally 6, then 5, then back to six. Once up to 10. It has been 9 since the late 19th century. Hardly 250 years of tradition.
Click to expand...
Good point! I didn’t know. But, packing to dilute one ideology or another is wrong.
Click to expand...
Why? It’s just politics. The Senate and House can have a majority at any one time. There can only be one party in the Executive Branch.

Besides, since Supreme Court appointments come at unpredictable times and circumstances, it is very difficult to “intentionally” pack the Court.
 
Anesti33 said:
it is very difficult to “intentionally” pack the Court.
Click to expand...
Edit: Let me write this more charitable. It is not hard to change any rule, once you have power.

I do find it unfair, the wanting to change the rules, when a party looses something. Which has been done often. This is what is happening now.
 
Last edited:
If the Democrats win the WH and the senate, they will be within their right to add justices, as per the constitution. And good for them. The GOP “had the right” to steal Obama’s nomination. Likewise, the Democrats will have the right to act in accordance with the will of the people. Republicans have lost the popular vote in vast majority of modern elections. Yes, the electorate decides the elections, but that doesn’t make the fact that most voters voted AGAINST the GOP.
 
Last edited:
I not sure if this is more of an indictment on Trump or the people who vote against him.Popular vote and all🤨
 
Link said:
If the Democrats win the WH and the senate, they will be within their right to add justices, as per the constitution. And good for them. The GOP “had the right” to steal Obama’s nomination. Likewise, the Democrats will have the right to act in accordance with the will of the people. Republicans have lost the popular vote in vast majority of modern elections. Yes, the electorate decides the elections, but that doesn’t make the fact that most voters voted AGAINST the GOP.
Click to expand...
so GOP has the right to pack the court right now?
 
One might consider the history of the last time a serious attempt was made to pack the Supreme Court.

FDR was elected to the largest Electoral College landslide since 1820 with 523 electoral votes to just 8 for his Republican opponent. In addition, Democrats obtained a 3/4’s majority in both Houses of Congress. Imagine that level of simultaneous domination of the executive and legislative branches that modern day Democrats can only dream of.

With these results in hand, FDR believed the time was right to strike back at the Supreme Court for having struck down some of his more controversial programs during his previous term. So he blindsided the country two weeks after his inauguration with his scheme to appoint six additional justices. The plan was nearly dead on arrival, being opposed by his own party as well as the American public and the justices themselves. It was a horrible political miscalculation on his part; a complete misreading the national sentiment toward the Court, if you will.

The irony of course is that FDR did eventually get to pack the court: only he did it the old fashioned way by appointing nine new justices as previous ones resigned or died in office.

If FDR who won 46 of 48 states and his 3/4’s majority Congress couldn’t do it, I’d suggest beware to anyone who thinks this will be a cakewalk.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top