How Dems take back the supreme Court post Trump. Court packing, and FDR.

Is adding additional justice seats a good idea?


  • Total voters
    25
  • Poll closed .
I pretty much agree with Viva about nothing, and I do not respect him.

What do you disagree on, and why don’t you respect him? So you’re against packing the Court, even if it ends up with a strong Conservative majority? Do you have enough faith in our processes, and judges’ abilities to separate politics from the law? Are you willing to accept a conclusive loss at the ballot box or SCOTUS? I’m not familiar with everyone’s post history, so I don’t know who the real revolutionaries are here.

I noticed that the poll on this thread registers about 90% opposition to Court packing. To me that suggests at least some liberals haven’t lost their minds.
 
So democrats lose and we should change the system because people aren’t smart enough to vote for them
 
The deranged left are more likely to get the idea they can change things with a violent revolution before being destroyed than winning back power by supporting open border and illegal immigration.

The left are still too stupid to understand they are turning significant numbers of voters against them with their support of illegal immigration and open borders. That includes black and Hispanic Americans. The left is so racist they can't understand why all minorities don't do as told and support their destructive policies, even though minority groups are often the most negatively impacted by illegal immigration and open borders.

There's growing anger within these communities where many know they are being used and hurt by these policies. A lot are closer to Trump on illegal immigration than they are the left, and that showed in a recent poll where Trump's support among Hispanic's has risen by 10%. The left doesn't give a shit about black or Hispanics Americans. They are only interested in controlling them and talking down to them. The slave masters on the left are the modern face of racism in this country, and I don't see them winning presi election for a long time.
 
Unions are still perfectly free to collectively bargain, that did not change with this latest ruling.

What did change was the unions ability to compel forced association.

The union has no right to collectively bargain for someone that doesn't want to be a part of their Union, nor do they have the right to compel membership fees from people who don't want to be a part of their Union.

This decision ends the immoral practice of forced association through unionism.

No it doesn't. That is a lie.


29684034_1667480773331307_5059717489512906958_n.jpg

29597895_1667478983331486_6305322750000370947_n.jpg

29594536_1667474683331916_5152674218642996304_n.jpg
 
The way supreme court justices are picked is the one major flaw in the constitution.

It should be switched to a run-off election with nominees from all backgrounds.
 


Probably shouldn't ignore the possibility that the political world is the one out of whack. And I can't help but be reminded of all the talk about the evils of the electoral college after the wrong guy won.

This other forum I frequent has a thread about where everyone is moving to after this. Saw some guys talking about Honduras. I think people are overreacting.
 
Uhh, no.

Obama was elected. Obama was the president when the supreme Court seat was vacated.

The Republicans cheated to stop his appointment.

It is time to cheat back.
There is nothing that can be done the Republicans have the majority in the Senate the house doesn't even have to vote hahaha.
 
If I were Dems and I wanted more federal and state level power, I'd move back toward the center and slap down the racial/sexual identity politics on the fringes. Shouldn't be too hard to pull the Midwest back into the Democratic fold. We have a good system and it has allowed the left to accomplish a good many of its goals over the past century. Shake off the desperation and panic and play the long game.
Strategically you are absolutely right but I do not think that they are capable of looking at the long game. Trump has rustled them so much that they are not thinking straight.
 
So democrats lose and we should change the system because people aren’t smart enough to vote for them

Trump undermines our civil and political institutions, so let's get rid of the electoral college, change how states are represented in the Senate, and pack the court.
 
Trump undermines our civil and political institutions, so let's get rid of the electoral college, change how states are represented in the Senate, and pack the court.
PACK THE SUPREME COURT
Mehdi Hasan
Sep. 30 2018, 11:00 AM






So it’s past time for liberals and the left to consider court packing: When they next have control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, Democrats should add at least two new seats to the supreme Court. They could even call it “court balancing.”

“Pack the courts as soon as we get the chance,” tweeted Indiana University law professor Ian Samuel, the co-host of the popular Supreme Court podcast “First Mondays,” on the the day Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement from the Supreme Court in June. “‘Pack the courts’ should be a phrase on par with ‘abolish ICE.’”

This might sound extreme, but it isn’t. The Constitution allows for Congress to decide the number of Supreme Court justices. “There is nothing magical about the number nine,” HuffPost’s Zach Carterobserved in June. “The court was founded in 1789 with just six justices and has included as many as 10, from 1863 to 1866 — when a Republican legislature intentionally shrank the court size to seven justices to prevent President Andrew Johnson from making any appointments.”

Nor is nine some sort of global norm: The U.K.’s Supreme Court consists of 12 justices; Israel’s has 15; in India, there are 25 Supreme Court justices (with a maximum of 31).

“The idea of expanding the size of the Supreme Court will get traction if the Democrats take the White House and Congress in 2020,” constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at University of California, Berkeley, told the Los Angeles Times in July. “It is the only way to keep there from being a very conservative Court for the next 10-20 years.”

I CAN HEAR the objections already, from timid liberals and outraged conservatives alike.

Isn’t court packing a tactic associated with authoritarian or dictatorial governments? Wouldn’t such a move undermine the Supreme Court’s legitimacy? Why go for the “nuclear option” of court packing when there are other less radical reforms on offer? And, of course, what’s to stop Republicans from doing the same when they’re back in charge?

Let’s deal with each of these in turn. First, the fact that the likes of Recep Tayyip Erdo?an and Viktor Orbán have packed the constitutional courts in their countries is irrelevant to the debate in the United States. “Court-packing is a tool,” argues Vox’s Dylan Matthews. “It can be used for authoritarian ends, or for democratic ones.” In 1863, for example, Abraham Lincoln added a 10th justice to the court in order to “further the federal war aims of preserving the Union and ending slavery.” Was that, morally or politically, the wrong thing for him to have done at that critical juncture in U.S. history?

Second, court packing would help, not hurt, the Supreme Court’s legitimacy. A hard-right court would be wildly out of sync with U.S. public opinion on a range of hot-button issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, consumer rights, environmental regulations, gerrymandering, and campaign finance. Meanwhile, the appointment of Kavanaugh would mean the Supreme Court has four justices (John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh) appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote; two justices (Clarence Thomas and Kavanaugh) accused of sexual misconduct and misleading the Senate; and one justice (Gorsuch) who effectively stole his seat from President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. How’s that for a crisis of legitimacy?

Third, how can you call court packing a “nuclear option” when six U.S. presidents — including Thomas Jefferson, Lincoln, and Trump’s own hero Andrew Jackson — signed off on it? In addition, Franklin Roosevelt may have tried and failed to pack a reactionary Supreme Court in 1937, but, as HuffPost’s Carter reminds us, “even after FDR retreated from his proposal amid a profound outcry from Southern Democrats, the justices sitting on the Court got his message and began issuing more sympathetic rulings on the New Deal.”

Critics of court packing on the left have suggested that there are less radical alternatives to the Supreme Court’s legitimacy crisis. Why not, they say, bring in term limits for the nine justices? Or impeach Kavanaugh and even Thomas after the midterms?

Term limits, though, require a constitutional amendment, while impeaching a Supreme Court justice requires a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate. Adding new justices, however? That only requires a simple majority in Congress. “People tend to describe it as a radical proposal but it’s no more difficult than passing any other bill,” Samuel told me over the phone, when I reached him for comment on the Kavanaugh debacle on Friday morning. “You can do it, and it’s easy.”

Fourth, what about the possibility of escalation and retaliation? Why wouldn’t a Republican president in, say, 2024 cancel out the court-packing of his or her Democratic predecessor by adding more conservative justices to the Court? Samuel called this the “standard game theory objection, or tit for tat.” However, he pointed out, “that’s not what has happened throughout history, when the size of the court has been adjusted.”

Plus, suggesting Republicans will retaliate to Democratic court-packing by doing the same is absurd: the GOP has already packed the Supreme Court. In 2016, Republicans in Congress prevented a Democratic president who won two terms, with two clear majorities, from filling a Supreme Court vacancy; in doing so, the GOP deliberately reduced the size of the Court to eight justices for more than nine months. Senior Republicans even suggested they’d restrict the Court to eight justices for the entirety of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Then, within three months of Trump coming to office, Republicans confirmed the ultra-conservative Neil Gorsuch as the 112th Supreme Court justice.

To suggest Democrats would be emboldening or provoking Republicans, therefore, gets this whole dynamic the wrong way around. According to Samuel, “It’s the equivalent of saying, ‘If we invade Normandy, the Nazis will shoot at us.’”

Court-packing has to be near the top of a progressive agenda for 2020. Democrats will have to learn to “connect court-packing to popular progressive programs,” Samuel told me. For example, will “Medicare for All” ever be a possibility if there’s a decades-long conservative majority on the highest court in the land? Lest we forget, a Republican-led Supreme Court, without Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, was only a single vote away from abolishing Obamacare in 2012. How about fixing gerrymandering or voter suppression? Will progressives even manage to get elected to the White House or Congress if an emboldened and unchecked conservative-dominated Supreme Court ratchets up its defense of such practices, thereby bolstering the Republican Party’s electoral prospects?

Forget procedures; forget norms. There is too much at stake. Playing by the old rules while the Republicans tear them up won’t cut it. Deferring to a court composed of conservative ideologues masquerading as impartial judges, to an explicitly political yet unelected body bent on making sweeping, reactionary, unpopular changes to the United States, is a betrayal of liberal, democratic, and progressive values.

There is a perfectly legal and viable solution to all this: Pack the Supreme Court. Pack it as soon as possible.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/static.theintercept.com/amp/pack-the-supreme-court.html
 
The Democrats are evil and corrupt. We need to keep them from winning any election.
 
The Democrats are evil and corrupt. We need to keep them from winning any election.
- No free speech
- No gun rights
- No due process

Vote Democrat!

(sadly there's still a bunch of idiots who will)
 
I am curious to see what percentage of Democrats would support packing the Court. @Jack V Savage , would you support this? @Quipling ? @kpt018 ?
I admit that I have not thought through the issues with court packing fully, but my position is it is a bad idea.

What I do know is Democrats took the SCJ for granted and failed to show up to vote during midterm elections whereas Republicans were fired up and always show up to vote. If they want liberal SCJs appointed they have to show up to the voting both and vote for Democrats that will appoint liberal SCJs. Now, Senate representation rules favor Republicans (California has the same representation as fucking North Dakota, for example) but those are the laws and Democrats will have to win under those laws.
 
Last edited:
It’s still a terrible idea.

Why?

And before you answer, I ask you read that article a few posts above.

The number of judges has been changed 6 times in our history, and our Constitution allows for it.

What's the problem?
 
Kavanaugh will be impeached for lying to congress.

Republicans will bitch about the "unprecedented" injustice taken by the democrats and use that as rationale to be even bigger fuckheads.

Because of course.
 
Back
Top