Good points!ShooterTX said:Absolutely agree. Do your job and then let the Senate fight it out.HashTag said:I agree on Amy Barrett, would be great choice.ShooterTX said:I am a Trump voter, but I was thinking that Trump should wait until after the election to nominate someone.BayNavFreak said:
I hate this, and I plan to vote for Biden.
What really sucks about the last 12 hours is realizing how much the Supreme Court has turned into a partisan game. And it's not supposed to be. I have respect for every person on that court and I trust that each one of them will make an educated and unbiased opinion on the cases set before them. The fact that both Democrats and Republicans are seizing this moment for selfish purposes before RBG's body is even cold...it's disgusting.
Then I heard a very compelling argument... what if we have another 2000 election? What if there is a 4-4 split at the SCOTUS instead of a 5-4 decision? The entire nation could fall apart over such an incident.
When you look at the mail-in ballots, and the pledges by many democrats to never concede the election, no matter the outcome on election night.... it seems inevitable that the election will end up being heard by the SCOTUS.
For that reason alone, it is imperative that a new justice be nominated, approved by the Senate, and seated with the Court ASAP.
Amy Coney Barrett will be an excellent justice. Replace RBG with ACB.
But aside from that election argument
Like Obama in 2016 who nominated a justice, Trump should do the same. It's not up to Trump to confirm the nomination, that's on the Senate, but it his job to put forth a nominee.
In an election year, a court vacancy has occurred 29 times in our history. A person was nominated each and everyone one of those times. Trump has a duty and should nominate someone.
The Dems will try and turn it into a circus again.... it's gonna get ugly. I wonder what kind of false attacks they will bring up against a Christian mom?
The good news is that they just recently grilled her over her nomination to the Federal Court of Appeals... so there is no room for a delay tactic like they did with Kavanaugh. No room for "new" accusations that "must be heard", so that removes an obvious ploy to try and delay it until after the election. There was a 15 year gap between Kavanaugh hearings, but there has only been 3 years since the last one for Barrett.
Expand the Supreme Court?
10,755 Views |
150 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by cinque
I find it hard to believe that the Democrat Congress members are representing their districts by tearing up the country with rioting and looting and allowing antifa amd BLM to have their way. Why hasn't our FBI ( the non crooked ones ) traced who finds these outlaws.
An interesting glance at history for those unfamiliar with "the switch in time that saved nine".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine
HuMcK said:
Sounds like a negotiation offer: telling McConnell to honor his own precedent, and Dems will keep the court at 9 if he does when they take the Senate. Of course, McConnell wouldn't know what good faith is if it bit him in his ass, so he plans to say "fck that precedent" and ram through a nominee.
Gonna be fun watching Republicans support a completely opposite position from just 4yrs ago...
Who controlled the Senate 4 years ago? Who controls it now? There's your precedent. I hope Trump nominates someone TODAY. If he gets re-elected he will likely get to replace a retiring Thomas. That would be FOUR justices. The Dem tears will be so extra salty.
I like Amy Barrett, but wonder is her nomination would wait for a Thomas retirement for her to take his spot. Amy Barrett would be the most conservative justice next to Thomas. She's more conservative than Kavanaughjbbear said:HuMcK said:
Sounds like a negotiation offer: telling McConnell to honor his own precedent, and Dems will keep the court at 9 if he does when they take the Senate. Of course, McConnell wouldn't know what good faith is if it bit him in his ass, so he plans to say "fck that precedent" and ram through a nominee.
Gonna be fun watching Republicans support a completely opposite position from just 4yrs ago...
Who controlled the Senate 4 years ago? Who controls it now? There's your precedent. I hope Trump nominates someone TODAY. If he gets re-elected he will likely get to replace a retiring Thomas. That would be FOUR justices. The Dem tears will be so extra salty.
I wonder if Trump nominates a more moderate (but less liberal than Ginsburg) replacement, this go 'round.
If McConnell doesn't abide by his own precedent, he will force the Dems to play by his rules and the Court will be expanded in a Biden administration.
Make Racism Wrong Again
what Biden admin? Prior to yesterday, Trump was tracking to win again. You believing the hype.cinque said:
If McConnell doesn't abide by his own precedent, he will force the Dems to play by his rules and the Court will be expanded in a Biden administration.
cinque said:
If McConnell doesn't abide by his own precedent, he will force the Dems to play by his rules and the Court will be expanded in a Biden administration.
I don't think you know what that word means. And the only ones who will "force" Democrats to once again threaten our Republic will be other Democrats.
Chuckle.Tracking how?Gruvin said:what Biden admin? Prior to yesterday, Trump was tracking to win again. You believing the hype.cinque said:
If McConnell doesn't abide by his own precedent, he will force the Dems to play by his rules and the Court will be expanded in a Biden administration.
Make Racism Wrong Again
cinque said:
If McConnell doesn't abide by his own precedent, he will force the Dems to play by his rules and the Court will be expanded in a Biden administration.
Sorry... you meant a Harris administration
Or more correctly, a Harris Soviet Central Committee
ShooterTX
Stop being silly. It will be Biden who will expand the Court in a bow to precedent.ShooterTX said:cinque said:
If McConnell doesn't abide by his own precedent, he will force the Dems to play by his rules and the Court will be expanded in a Biden administration.
Sorry... you meant a Harris administration
Or more correctly, a Harris Soviet Central Committee
Make Racism Wrong Again
cinque said:Stop being silly. It will be Biden who will expand the Court in a bow to precedent.ShooterTX said:cinque said:
If McConnell doesn't abide by his own precedent, he will force the Dems to play by his rules and the Court will be expanded in a Biden administration.
Sorry... you meant a Harris administration
Or more correctly, a Harris Soviet Central Committee
What precedent exists for expanding the SCOTUS?
ShooterTX
https://harvardlpr.com/2019/05/06/the-supreme-court-has-been-expanded-many-times-before-here-are-four-ways-to-do-it-today/ShooterTX said:cinque said:Stop being silly. It will be Biden who will expand the Court in a bow to precedent.ShooterTX said:cinque said:
If McConnell doesn't abide by his own precedent, he will force the Dems to play by his rules and the Court will be expanded in a Biden administration.
Sorry... you meant a Harris administration
Or more correctly, a Harris Soviet Central Committee
What precedent exists for expanding the SCOTUS?
Make Racism Wrong Again
SCOTUS started out with 6 Justices, then 7, then 9, then 10, then 7 again just to prevent Andrew Johnson from appointing any, then 9 again where it still stands. In the 1930s FDR came close to expanding it to 15.
do you pay attention to things? It seems you are stuck in Bidens basement.cinque said:Chuckle.Tracking how?Gruvin said:what Biden admin? Prior to yesterday, Trump was tracking to win again. You believing the hype.cinque said:
If McConnell doesn't abide by his own precedent, he will force the Dems to play by his rules and the Court will be expanded in a Biden administration.
Cant do your homework for you... there is a poll that has Trump ahead and there are several polls that are tracking polling different than what people are actually claiming to vote... seems like they learned very little from 2016.
Tip of the iceberg but keep your head in the sand
cinque said:https://harvardlpr.com/2019/05/06/the-supreme-court-has-been-expanded-many-times-before-here-are-four-ways-to-do-it-today/ShooterTX said:cinque said:Stop being silly. It will be Biden who will expand the Court in a bow to precedent.ShooterTX said:cinque said:
If McConnell doesn't abide by his own precedent, he will force the Dems to play by his rules and the Court will be expanded in a Biden administration.
Sorry... you meant a Harris administration
Or more correctly, a Harris Soviet Central Committee
What precedent exists for expanding the SCOTUS?
You have to go back over 140 years for the last time this was done... and almost every case of changing the courts has been seen as a negative political move that needed to be corrected.
If Biden does this, then the next Republican president will just add another group of justice, and so on, and so on...
We could have 100 justices by 2044!
Only the dems would come up with such an evil idea.
ShooterTX
I can't find them. Will you list them?Gruvin said:do you pay attention to things? It seems you are stuck in Bidens basement.cinque said:Chuckle.Tracking how?Gruvin said:what Biden admin? Prior to yesterday, Trump was tracking to win again. You believing the hype.cinque said:
If McConnell doesn't abide by his own precedent, he will force the Dems to play by his rules and the Court will be expanded in a Biden administration.
Cant do your homework for you... there is a poll that has Trump ahead and there are several polls that are tracking polling different than what people are actually claiming to vote... seems like they learned very little from 2016.
Tip of the iceberg but keep your head in the sand
Make Racism Wrong Again
I always forget how horribly awful she is. In the actual statement, she campaigns. This would be like giving a campaign stump speech during John Lewis' funeral. I will be glad when Trump leaves office but I am thankful she was never president. So many good candidates and these are our choices.Doc Holliday said:
She would have been an excellent president and much better than what we have today.greatdivide said:I always forget how horribly awful she is. In the actual statement, she campaigns. This would be like giving a campaign stump speech during John Lewis' funeral. I will be glad when Trump leaves office but I am thankful she was never president. So many good candidates and these are our choices.Doc Holliday said:
Make Racism Wrong Again
HashTag said:I like Amy Barrett, but wonder is her nomination would wait for a Thomas retirement for her to take his spot. Amy Barrett would be the most conservative justice next to Thomas. She's more conservative than Kavanaughjbbear said:HuMcK said:
Sounds like a negotiation offer: telling McConnell to honor his own precedent, and Dems will keep the court at 9 if he does when they take the Senate. Of course, McConnell wouldn't know what good faith is if it bit him in his ass, so he plans to say "fck that precedent" and ram through a nominee.
Gonna be fun watching Republicans support a completely opposite position from just 4yrs ago...
Who controlled the Senate 4 years ago? Who controls it now? There's your precedent. I hope Trump nominates someone TODAY. If he gets re-elected he will likely get to replace a retiring Thomas. That would be FOUR justices. The Dem tears will be so extra salty.
I wonder if Trump nominates a more moderate (but less liberal than Ginsburg) replacement, this go 'round.
Kabanaugh isn't conservative. The court is not conservative. He's like the turncoat McCain. He's a Bush Bro. Tells you all you need to know and was chosen to appease the Bush faction
Not a high bar and she still would not have cleared it. She stole that primary from Bernie with dirty tricks so she should not have even been the candidate. She is awful. Biden with dementia is a better candidate and everyone in the democratic party knows it. The democrats are smartly keeping her hidden through all this. The few times she has been allowed to speak, even her husband gave her stink eye. A truly despicable human but other than that, she's great.cinque said:She would have been an excellent president and much better than what we have today.greatdivide said:I always forget how horribly awful she is. In the actual statement, she campaigns. This would be like giving a campaign stump speech during John Lewis' funeral. I will be glad when Trump leaves office but I am thankful she was never president. So many good candidates and these are our choices.Doc Holliday said:
cinque said:https://harvardlpr.com/2019/05/06/the-supreme-court-has-been-expanded-many-times-before-here-are-four-ways-to-do-it-today/ShooterTX said:cinque said:Stop being silly. It will be Biden who will expand the Court in a bow to precedent.ShooterTX said:cinque said:
If McConnell doesn't abide by his own precedent, he will force the Dems to play by his rules and the Court will be expanded in a Biden administration.
Sorry... you meant a Harris administration
Or more correctly, a Harris Soviet Central Committee
What precedent exists for expanding the SCOTUS?
So your support for the idea of doing it is to refer to clearly partisan moves from over 150 years ago and FDR's more recent threat to the judiciary all during dark times in the United States?
That's just great.
cinque said:She would have been an excellent president and much better than what we have today.greatdivide said:I always forget how horribly awful she is. In the actual statement, she campaigns. This would be like giving a campaign stump speech during John Lewis' funeral. I will be glad when Trump leaves office but I am thankful she was never president. So many good candidates and these are our choices.Doc Holliday said:
I was just about to use this phrase. Simply behaving responsibly about this vacancy by the Republicans would guarantee against any court expansion legislation as a top agenda item. That said the country has grown substantially since the last time we added District Courts. But naturally the GOP will continue its might makes right and war against the Democrats here and when it backfires and is flipped they will cry like puxxies when the Democrats decide to begin governing in kind toward them. Again though behaving responsibly about this, would create some good will.HuMcK said:
An interesting glance at history for those unfamiliar with "the switch in time that saved nine".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine
The last SCOTUS judge confirmed this close to an election was also during the pre Civil War era. The next closest was in the 1950s.
The legislation that FDR proposed which died in the Senate due to his no longer pushing it after the "switch in time", was rather interesting and actually created incentive to retire. I believe it gave the President the authority to nominate up to 6 new SC Justices for every Justice who reached the age of 71 and remained on the Court.
Up to 6 sounds like alot of Justices to me. I dont know that I support doing it that way but one new one for every Justice who reached 80 ( a more modern view of "old age") is perhaps reasonable however the total number of Justices would be fluid. If it was built in that no Justice over 80 would be replaced when they left the court, that might make the number less fluid and not forever increasing in size. The simple idea of expanding it to 13 might be more simple.
Up to 6 sounds like alot of Justices to me. I dont know that I support doing it that way but one new one for every Justice who reached 80 ( a more modern view of "old age") is perhaps reasonable however the total number of Justices would be fluid. If it was built in that no Justice over 80 would be replaced when they left the court, that might make the number less fluid and not forever increasing in size. The simple idea of expanding it to 13 might be more simple.
The Democrats are in a defensive posture and will respond to however Republicans choose to play their hand.FWBear said:cinque said:https://harvardlpr.com/2019/05/06/the-supreme-court-has-been-expanded-many-times-before-here-are-four-ways-to-do-it-today/ShooterTX said:cinque said:Stop being silly. It will be Biden who will expand the Court in a bow to precedent.ShooterTX said:cinque said:
If McConnell doesn't abide by his own precedent, he will force the Dems to play by his rules and the Court will be expanded in a Biden administration.
Sorry... you meant a Harris administration
Or more correctly, a Harris Soviet Central Committee
What precedent exists for expanding the SCOTUS?
So your support for the idea of doing it is to refer to clearly partisan moves from over 150 years ago and FDR's more recent threat to the judiciary all during dark times in the United States?
That's just great.
Make Racism Wrong Again
cinque said:The Democrats are in a defensive posture and will respond to however Republicans choose to play their hand.FWBear said:cinque said:https://harvardlpr.com/2019/05/06/the-supreme-court-has-been-expanded-many-times-before-here-are-four-ways-to-do-it-today/ShooterTX said:cinque said:Stop being silly. It will be Biden who will expand the Court in a bow to precedent.ShooterTX said:cinque said:
If McConnell doesn't abide by his own precedent, he will force the Dems to play by his rules and the Court will be expanded in a Biden administration.
Sorry... you meant a Harris administration
Or more correctly, a Harris Soviet Central Committee
What precedent exists for expanding the SCOTUS?
So your support for the idea of doing it is to refer to clearly partisan moves from over 150 years ago and FDR's more recent threat to the judiciary all during dark times in the United States?
That's just great.
Defensive posture? They've been on offense since before Trump took office.
Harry Reid already showed how Dems would respond. More than likely the Dems take the Senate this year. If I voted a Dem into office and they did not push to get supreme court justice in, I would be really frustrated with them. Dems did not get Garland in because they did not have the votes because the American people did not give them that power last time. The American people and Harry Reid gave the Reps that power now.
Doc Holliday said:A total of 61 SCOTUS justices have been nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court since the turn of the last century (1900)HuMcK said:
Sounds like a negotiation offer: telling McConnell to honor his own precedent, and Dems will keep the court at 9 if he does when they take the Senate. Of course, McConnell wouldn't know what good faith is if it bit him in his ass, so he plans to say "fck that precedent" and ram through a nominee.
Gonna be fun watching Republicans support a completely opposite position from just 4yrs ago...
70% of these (43 Justices) were confirmed in *under 46 days* (the amount of time remaining until the Nov 3 Presidential election).
What precedent?
The precedent he set 4 years ago when he said he would let the people decide by voting for the next president with 10 months left. Same should apply. This replacement should be decided by the republic, not the republicans.
The two most dangerous things in the world are sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. MLK
Democrats have no power when it comes to who replaces Justice Ginsburg. We are totally at the mercy of Republicans until they decide to act. You get that, don't you?FWBear said:cinque said:The Democrats are in a defensive posture and will respond to however Republicans choose to play their hand.FWBear said:cinque said:https://harvardlpr.com/2019/05/06/the-supreme-court-has-been-expanded-many-times-before-here-are-four-ways-to-do-it-today/ShooterTX said:cinque said:Stop being silly. It will be Biden who will expand the Court in a bow to precedent.ShooterTX said:cinque said:
If McConnell doesn't abide by his own precedent, he will force the Dems to play by his rules and the Court will be expanded in a Biden administration.
Sorry... you meant a Harris administration
Or more correctly, a Harris Soviet Central Committee
What precedent exists for expanding the SCOTUS?
So your support for the idea of doing it is to refer to clearly partisan moves from over 150 years ago and FDR's more recent threat to the judiciary all during dark times in the United States?
That's just great.
Defensive posture? They've been on offense since before Trump took office.
Make Racism Wrong Again
cinque said:Democrats have no power when it comes to who replaces Justice Ginsburg. We are totally at the mercy of Republicans until they decide to act. You get that, don't you?FWBear said:cinque said:The Democrats are in a defensive posture and will respond to however Republicans choose to play their hand.FWBear said:cinque said:https://harvardlpr.com/2019/05/06/the-supreme-court-has-been-expanded-many-times-before-here-are-four-ways-to-do-it-today/ShooterTX said:cinque said:Stop being silly. It will be Biden who will expand the Court in a bow to precedent.ShooterTX said:cinque said:
If McConnell doesn't abide by his own precedent, he will force the Dems to play by his rules and the Court will be expanded in a Biden administration.
Sorry... you meant a Harris administration
Or more correctly, a Harris Soviet Central Committee
What precedent exists for expanding the SCOTUS?
So your support for the idea of doing it is to refer to clearly partisan moves from over 150 years ago and FDR's more recent threat to the judiciary all during dark times in the United States?
That's just great.
Defensive posture? They've been on offense since before Trump took office.
I see what you're saying. This is true.
But when the defense on this issue is to threaten to burn it all down and pack the Court ... that sounds like more of the same leftist offense.
The Dems should say nothing of their plans until Republicans decide what to do. If Mitch ignores his own precedent, Democrats will be forced to play by his rules.FWBear said:cinque said:Democrats have no power when it comes to who replaces Justice Ginsburg. We are totally at the mercy of Republicans until they decide to act. You get that, don't you?FWBear said:cinque said:The Democrats are in a defensive posture and will respond to however Republicans choose to play their hand.FWBear said:cinque said:https://harvardlpr.com/2019/05/06/the-supreme-court-has-been-expanded-many-times-before-here-are-four-ways-to-do-it-today/ShooterTX said:cinque said:Stop being silly. It will be Biden who will expand the Court in a bow to precedent.ShooterTX said:cinque said:
If McConnell doesn't abide by his own precedent, he will force the Dems to play by his rules and the Court will be expanded in a Biden administration.
Sorry... you meant a Harris administration
Or more correctly, a Harris Soviet Central Committee
What precedent exists for expanding the SCOTUS?
So your support for the idea of doing it is to refer to clearly partisan moves from over 150 years ago and FDR's more recent threat to the judiciary all during dark times in the United States?
That's just great.
Defensive posture? They've been on offense since before Trump took office.
I see what you're saying. This is true.
But when the defense on this issue is to threaten to burn it all down and pack the Court ... that sounds like more of the same leftist offense.
Make Racism Wrong Again
So according to you, President Biden and the Dem Majority Senate should do what the majority of the American people give them the power to do, including adding about eight members to the Court. Got it.greatdivide said:
Harry Reid already showed how Dems would respond. More than likely the Dems take the Senate this year. If I voted a Dem into office and they did not push to get supreme court justice in, I would be really frustrated with them. Dems did not get Garland in because they did not have the votes because the American people did not give them that power last time. The American people and Harry Reid gave the Reps that power now.
Why then is this idea even controversial on this board?