Democrats in House & Senate introduce bill to expand number of SCOTUS justices from 9 to 13

[DEAD7]

"Half the country" doesn't view it was such.
I daresay that the vast majority of the country has no conception of what the Supreme Court does, and are completely unaware of the shift in SCOTUS ideology.

It will continue to function as the final arbiter of cases involving federal law or within its original jurisdiction.
The last 20 years, particularly after the SCOTUS' erroneous decision in Bush v. Gore and subsequent Congressional infighting and refusal to honor unwritten rules regarding nominations - have accelerated the need for a return to some kind of balance.

It's the GOP's creation of the circumstances that necessitate this.

You’re not wrong.
But I disagree with packing being necessary.
The sky isn’t falling.

 

[Adeptus Astartes]

Clarence Thomas, ACB, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch aren't qualified. So either remove them or add 4 seats. There ya go.

Treating judges as if they don't have ideologies that they impose in their rulings is also how we got here. It's naïve to even considering treating them as if they're non partisan or non ideological. One of the judges tried to say racism wasn't a thing anymore which led to them neutering the VRA. That's about as hard right as it gets. All of it is political and people have to stop thinking as if it isnt.

In a perfect world, sure we'd agree. This aint a perfect world and racism especially structural racism is still very much a thing in this country and the courts do everything they can to keep in place.

Out of the ones you listed, only ACB isn't qualified. Gorsuch is actually pretty awesome. He wrote the majority opinion overturning LA and ORs laws allowing non-unanimous convictions, and Thomas cosigned it. Liberal Kagan dissented. The one you should have highlighted is the bytch Alito.

 

[Json]

The SC was going to have a conservative bent but the Garland decision basically set an ugly precedent that whatever gives our side an advantage is okay.

So while I wouldn’t want an expansion, I now can’t be sure the Republicans won’t simply Garland their next opportunity as well so.

This is that slippery slope Conservatives are always worried about but ironically caused it.

 

[EndDomination]

Out of the ones you listed, only ACB isn't qualified. Gorsuch is actually pretty awesome. He wrote the majority opinion overturning LA and ORs laws allowing non-unanimous convictions, and Thomas cosigned it. Liberal Kagan dissented. The one you should have highlighted is the bytch Alito.

I think one or two strong decisions shouldn't overwrite the dozens of bad ones.
Kagan joined portions of Alito's dissent - but describing her as "liberal" is a big reach - she's a centrist in the more real sense of the word.

I think "qualified" and "unqualified" are fairly elastic and useless terms to refer to judges.
There are those who are far outside of the mainstream, on the right (no leftist judges have ever been put on the Supreme Court) are dangerous, their legal opinions are simply to bolster right-wing views, or to create an entire separate body of law from that which Congress intended. Like corporate speech, magical limits on affirmative action, literally cutting out rights of action created by Congress, amorphous limitations Congress's power to regulate "commerce" leading to limitations on criminal justice reform, prevention of weapons proliferation, etc.

 

[EndDomination]

You’re not wrong.
But I disagree with packing being necessary.
The sky isn’t falling.

Depends on what you consider the "sky falling."

Access to healthcare, specialized healthcare for women, abortion rights, affirmative action, collective bargaining rights, civil rights, or congressional remedies to social ills have all being eroded or limited under conservative courts - particularly those starting after Rehnquist became chief justice.

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

Depends on what you consider the "sky falling."

Access to healthcare, specialized healthcare for women, abortion rights, affirmative action, collective bargaining rights, civil rights, or congressional remedies to social ills have all being eroded or limited under conservative courts - particularly those starting after Rehnquist became chief justice.

The Sky isn't falling for Him is what he meant to say.

 

[mr. smoke weed]

9 people who aren't elected make the final decision on the most important court cases in the country.

Yea I'm good on that.

 

[DEAD7]

9 people who aren't elected make the final decision on the most important court cases in the country.

Yea I'm good on that.

Change 9 to 11 or 15 and you are suddenly good with it? Or are you opposed to the idea of the SC altogether?

 

[Formerly Black Trash]

Justice Stephen Breyer warns against 'packing' Supreme Court
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnew...rns-expanding-supreme-court/story?id=76921152
Liberal Justices oppose it and democrat members of congress oppose it, and the president has spoken out against for some of the same reasons I’ve mentioned...

It ain’t happening because it’s a bad idea that will likely have rippling effects it’s proponents can’t see...

I think I the posters in this thread who have stated all it will do is fire up the GoP for 2022 are correct.

But you're pro GOP...so that would be a good thing to you

 

[EndDomination]

Change 9 to 11 or 15 and you are suddenly good with it? Or are you opposed to the idea of the SC altogether?

Ideological diversity of some kind would be appreciated.

J. Thurgood Marshall is probably the most left-leaning justice ever, with William O. Douglas and Sotomayor as second and third - and none of them are even remotely to the Left.

It is an unaccountable body, term limits should be included.

 

[DEAD7]

But you're pro GOP...so that would be a good thing to you

I'm not pro GoP, but I oppose tailoring the judicial branch to fit congress in this way.

 

[Payday23]

The SC was going to have a conservative bent but the Garland decision basically set an ugly precedent that whatever gives our side an advantage is okay.

So while I wouldn’t want an expansion, I now can’t be sure the Republicans won’t simply Garland their next opportunity as well so.

This is that slippery slope Conservatives are always worried about but ironically caused it.

It's only a slippery slope if Democrats use it. History says they won't due to wanting to be fair and bipartisan

 

[BiggWebb79]

Republicans only have themselves to blame for this.

No fun when the rabbit has the gun

 

[Json]

It's only a slippery slope if Democrats use it. History says they won't due to wanting to be fair and bipartisan

No I mean it’s a slippery slope that the Republicans will just keep upping the ante to keep their majority in the judiciary.

The Dems next play is to add DC and give themselves breathing room and more appointments to the court.

 

[Gus Money]

Look at some of the shyt written in here. But nah SCOTUS isn’t political.