SCOTUS Reform

[icanhelp1]

Democrats actually want a true democracy, where the mob rules, and then when they lose the majority mob they’ll bitch that a true democracy is antithetical to a constitutional republic.

 

[icanhelp1]

LOL. And THIS is a prime example of the ridiculousness of the Democrat's hyperbolic attempts to destroy the judicial system. Presidents nominate a judge for SCOTUS to replace one who dies or retires. The President cannot "stack" the court. He nominates a successor and the Senate confirms or not. We could equally say Democrat Presidents stacked the court with left wing judges for decades. But we don't. Because the accepted practice is that each President nominates judge(s) to succeed those who die. Or retire. Now we have a SCOTUS with a conservative bent, all of a sudden Democrats want to change the system because it doesn't favor them.

Tough. Fucking. Shit. You just illustrated in one sentence everything that is detestable and reprehensible about Democrats, and why we want to roll back just about every piece of legislation and regulation and change Democrats have made. It's almost amusing if it wasn't so dangerous. You really have no idea of the ultimate consequences of what you'd like to do, do you?

Bray123 doesn’t understand that the Senate plays a very important role in appointing justices. And if Bray123 did its homework it would realize that republican senators were far more conciliatory towards democrat nominations and appointments to the high court, democrats, however, never return the favor.

 

[Bray123]

LOL. And THIS is a prime example of the ridiculousness of the Democrat's hyperbolic attempts to destroy the judicial system. Presidents nominate a judge for SCOTUS to replace one who dies or retires. The President cannot "stack" the court. He nominates a successor and the Senate confirms or not. We could equally say Democrat Presidents stacked the court with left wing judges for decades. But we don't. Because the accepted practice is that each President nominates judge(s) to succeed those who die. Or retire. Now we have a SCOTUS with a conservative bent, all of a sudden Democrats want to change the system because it doesn't favor them.

Tough. Fucking. Shit. You just illustrated in one sentence everything that is detestable and reprehensible about Democrats, and why we want to roll back just about every piece of legislation and regulation and change Democrats have made. It's almost amusing if it wasn't so dangerous. You really have no idea of the ultimate consequences of what you'd like to do, do you?

The present SCOTUS does not have a conservative bent, it has a Trump bent.

 

[Rightguide]

Kamala’s statement:

"…President Biden and I are calling on Congress to pass important reforms – from imposing term limits for Justices’ active service, to requiring Justices to comply with binding ethics rules just like every other federal judge. And finally, in our democracy, no one should be above the law. So we must also ensure that no former President has immunity for crimes committed while in the White House."

Term limits or an ethical standards cannot be imposed on The SCOTUS without amending the Constitution. The trouble with the Left is they don't understand the Constitution or the law. They are a separate and coequal branch of government.

 

[HisArpy]

Democrats actually want a true democracy, where the mob rules, and then when they lose the majority mob they’ll bitch that a true democracy is antithetical to a constitutional republic.

Democratic Republic. One where the representatives rule, subject to the will of the mob, but without consequences or removal from office by the voters.

 

[icanhelp1]

Democratic Republic. One where the representatives rule, subject to the will of the mob, but without consequences or removal from office by the voters.

It appears to me that democrats don’t want states rights. They always vote along party lines over their constituents.

Looks like democrats want all the power to be at the federal level, fuck the states.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

It appears to me that democrats don’t want states rights. They always vote along party lines over their constituents.

Looks like democrats want all the power to be at the federal level, fuck the states.

That was one of the consequences of that bit of 19th century unpleasantness.

 

[icanhelp1]

That was one of the consequences of that bit of 19th century unpleasantness.

FDR! A democrat by name, a Marxist by trade.

 

[Living_Paradox]

LOL. And THIS is a prime example of the ridiculousness of the Democrat's hyperbolic attempts to destroy the judicial system. Presidents nominate a judge for SCOTUS to replace one who dies or retires. The President cannot "stack" the court. He nominates a successor and the Senate confirms or not. We could equally say Democrat Presidents stacked the court with left wing judges for decades. But we don't. Because the accepted practice is that each President nominates judge(s) to succeed those who die. Or retire. Now we have a SCOTUS with a conservative bent, all of a sudden Democrats want to change the system because it doesn't favor them.

Tough. Fucking. Shit. You just illustrated in one sentence everything that is detestable and reprehensible about Democrats, and why we want to roll back just about every piece of legislation and regulation and change Democrats have made. It's almost amusing if it wasn't so dangerous. You really have no idea of the ultimate consequences of what you'd like to do, do you?

I am not familiar enough with this board yet, but it seems to me: Not many people here are interested in actual FAIR + CORRECT arguments, which are based on facts.

Of course, “stacking” and UNstacking” SCOTUS has happened throughout history, since the number of SCOTUS justices has varied over time. And in the 1936-37 time frame, FDR’s mere THREAT to do this has driven positive results. JUst look at SCOTUS decisions handed down afterwards: they became much more reasonable.

BUT the far larger problem with this conversation is, IMHO, nobody on this thread has ever mentioned the ROOT CAUSE of all SCOTUS problems. Namely the BRAZEN pretentiousness, orchestrated in 1803, by one of the usual suspects, then Chief Justice John Marshall. Via the infamously horrendous decision he handed down in Marbury v Madison.

You see, Nowhere does the Constitution give ONE of the THREE branches of government, the power to subjugate the other TWO.

Had not everybody been ASLEEP at the wheel then, THAT particular version of the 1803 decision would have resulted in impeaching ALL SCOTUS justices at once. But it happened in 1803, when no internet existed, and apparently no reporters either who specialized on digging up dirt.

BTW, Law Professor Mark Tushnet, Georgetown University, has been arguing AGAINST this travesty of justice ever since 1999 at least. In his book “Taking the Constitution away from the Courts”

Does anyone care to comment on this?

 

[Rightguide]

I am not familiar enough with this board yet, but it seems to me: Not many people here are interested in actual FAIR + CORRECT arguments, which are based on facts.

Of course, “stacking” and UNstacking” SCOTUS has happened throughout history, since the number of SCOTUS justices has varied over time. And in the 1936-37 time frame, FDR’s mere THREAT to do this has driven positive results. JUst look at SCOTUS decisions handed down afterwards: they became much more reasonable.

BUT the far larger problem with this conversation is, IMHO, nobody on this thread has ever mentioned the ROOT CAUSE of all SCOTUS problems. Namely the BRAZEN pretentiousness, orchestrated in 1803, by one of the usual suspects, then Chief Justice John Marshall. Via the infamously horrendous decision he handed down in Marburg v Madison.

You see, Nowhere does the Constitution give ONE of the THREE branches of government, the power to subjugate the other TWO.

Had not everybody been ASLEEP at the wheel then, THAT particular version of the 1803 decision would have resulted in impeaching ALL SCOTUS justices at once. But it happened in 1803, when no internet existed, and apparently no reporters either who specialized on digging up dirt.

BTW, Law Professor Mark Tushnet, Georgetown University, has been arguing AGAINST this travesty of justice ever since 1999 at least. In his book “Taking the Constitution away from the Courts”

Does anyone care to comment on this?

I think you meant Marbury V Madison.

 

[Living_Paradox]

I think you meant Marbury V Madison.

Of course; Thank you

 

[icanhelp1]

I am not familiar enough with this board yet, but it seems to me: Not many people here are interested in actual FAIR + CORRECT arguments, which are based on facts.

Of course, “stacking” and UNstacking” SCOTUS has happened throughout history, since the number of SCOTUS justices has varied over time. And in the 1936-37 time frame, FDR’s mere THREAT to do this has driven positive results. JUst look at SCOTUS decisions handed down afterwards: they became much more reasonable.

BUT the far larger problem with this conversation is, IMHO, nobody on this thread has ever mentioned the ROOT CAUSE of all SCOTUS problems. Namely the BRAZEN pretentiousness, orchestrated in 1803, by one of the usual suspects, then Chief Justice John Marshall. Via the infamously horrendous decision he handed down in Marburg v Madison.

You see, Nowhere does the Constitution give ONE of the THREE branches of government, the power to subjugate the other TWO.

Had not everybody been ASLEEP at the wheel then, THAT particular version of the 1803 decision would have resulted in impeaching ALL SCOTUS justices at once. But it happened in 1803, when no internet existed, and apparently no reporters either who specialized on digging up dirt.

BTW, Law Professor Mark Tushnet, Georgetown University, has been arguing AGAINST this travesty of justice ever since 1999 at least. In his book “Taking the Constitution away from the Courts”

Does anyone care to comment on this?

Until tribalism is exorcised from our political system we will continue to spiral into an unknown abyss. Politicians need to represent their constituents over party rule. Represent the people and carry a healthy distrust for bigger government. Our forefathers crafted the constitution to protect us from big government overreach, unfortunately our media who used to expose corruption has now been corrupted.

 

[Living_Paradox]

Until tribalism is exorcised from our political system we will continue to spiral into an unknown abyss. Politicians need to represent their constituents over party rule. Represent the people and carry a healthy distrust for bigger government. Our forefathers crafted the constitution to protect us from big government overreach, unfortunately our media who used to expose corruption has now been corrupted.

I agree with you on your use of "tribalism" for what is hapening, But I like to take issue with your term "BIGGER" goverment. IMHO, complex societies NEED complex forms of governance. And that cannot be accomplished by a lone Justice of the Peace every other Sunday afternoon.

Instaed I'd object to overreach done by governing agencies not sufficiently supervised. And regarding our media, there are plenty left which DO EXPOSE corruption. Inckuding even a political activist, who aims for the White House.

But unfortuntely the electorate has been brainwashed into believing, a vote for him will be lost for sure.

 

[Pad_Foot]

What a terrible idea, stacking the court to combat the felon's stacking of the court with corrupt Crow-funded lackeys.

Fine don’t stack it
Give it RULES it must follow
And
Impeach at least two of them !!

 

[icanhelp1]

I agree with you on your use of "tribalism" for what is hapening, But I like to take issue with your term "BIGGER" goverment. IMHO, complex societies NEED complex forms of governance. And that cannot be accomplished by a lone Justice of the Peace every other Sunday afternoon.

Instaed I'd object to overreach done by governing agencies not sufficiently supervised. And regarding our media, there are plenty left which DO EXPOSE corruption. Inckuding even a political activist, who aims for the White House.

But unfortuntely the electorate has been brainwashed into believing, a vote for him will be lost for sure.

Complex societies need more effective and efficient government. A government that represents the people not a government that spends valuable limited resources on self sustainment while giving away the store. Excessive government regulations, excessive bloated bureaucracies, excessive social spending cannot be sustained. Bigger government never solves problems, smart government solves problems. Someday when you have time just review spending bills, pork spending and other regulatory bureaucratic mismanagement. By the way both political parties have been fucking us over for decades. Example, why should I have to pay for someone else’s college tuition, not only the dumbest idea in history but unconstitutional. Our Political representatives have long since surpassed bringing home the bacon to outright bringing home the whole pig.

 

[HisArpy]

Fine don’t stack it
Give it RULES it must follow
And
Impeach at least two of them !!

The SCOTUS has rules to follow. They're called laws and the US Constitution.

I'm fairly certain that the 2 justices you want to impeach are conservative. And I'm also fairly certain that you'll want to replace them with Liberal justices. Which, for some inexplicable reason, seems to be intended to make the court one sided and partisan rather than neutral and detached.

 

[RobDownSouth]

LOL. And THIS is a prime example of the ridiculousness of the Democrat's hyperbolic attempts to destroy the judicial system. Presidents nominate a judge for SCOTUS to replace one who dies or retires. The President cannot "stack" the court. He nominates a successor and the Senate confirms or not. We could equally say Democrat Presidents stacked the court with left wing judges for decades. But we don't. Because the accepted practice is that each President nominates judge(s) to succeed those who die. Or retire. Now we have a SCOTUS with a conservative bent, all of a sudden Democrats want to change the system because it doesn't favor them.

Tough. Fucking. Shit. You just illustrated in one sentence everything that is detestable and reprehensible about Democrats, and why we want to roll back just about every piece of legislation and regulation and change Democrats have made. It's almost amusing if it wasn't so dangerous. You really have no idea of the ultimate consequences of what you'd like to do, do you?

This rant might be relevant is you understood what "stacking the court" meant.

But you don't, so it isn't.

In 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt tried to increase the NUMBER of Supreme Court justice by adding one new justice each time a sitting justice turned 70 years old and opted not to retire.
Cranky conservatives turned red with apoplexy.
They saw this, correctly, to force Supreme Court justices to retire without a constitutional amendment.
They derailed the measure.
They called it....drumroll....."packing the court".

It's worth noting that at the time, their were nine judicial districts in America and nine justices. Over the years new judicial districts were added, there are now 13 districts, but only 9 justices to oversee them. So some justices have to have twice the caseload of potential cases to review.

There is a valid argument to be had to re-balance the court to 13 justices, but that would likely negate the current 6-3 ultraconservative majority if Kamala Harris becomes the next President of the United States. MAGA would be "big mad".

Try to be less belligerent and more intelligent when haranguing us on topics you know little to nothing about next time, m'kay?

 

[ChloeTzang]

This rant might be relevant is you understood what "stacking the court" meant.

But you don't, so it isn't.

In 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt tried to increase the NUMBER of Supreme Court justice by adding one new justice each time a sitting justice turned 70 years old and opted not to retire.
Cranky conservatives turned red with apoplexy.
They saw this, correctly, to force Supreme Court justices to retire without a constitutional amendment.
They derailed the measure.
They called it....drumroll....."packing the court".

It's worth noting that at the time, their were nine judicial districts in America and nine justices. Over the years new judicial districts were added, there are now 13 districts, but only 9 justices to oversee them. So some justices have to have twice the caseload of potential cases to review.

There is a valid argument to be had to re-balance the court to 13 justices, but that would likely negate the current 6-3 ultraconservative majority if Kamala Harris becomes the next President of the United States. MAGA would be "big mad".

Try to be less belligerent and more intelligent when haranguing us on topics you know little to nothing about next time, m'kay?

LOL. There ARE valid arguments, but that's not what the Democrats want. They literally want to stack the court to do away with the current slightly conservative majority.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Bray123 doesn’t understand that the Senate plays a very important role in appointing justices. And if Bray123 did its homework it would realize that republican senators were far more conciliatory towards democrat nominations and appointments to the high court, democrats, however, never return the favor.

Ole Mitchy Boy disagrees with you.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Ole Mitchy Boy disagrees with you.

Mitchy Boy needs to get the fuck outta dodge, useless and corrupt old RINO that he is. He's outlived his use by date

 

[Aglaopheme]

He was darn good at what he did, as much had I didn’t care for it. You guys have no one on your bench that can do the same.

 

[HisArpy]

He was darn good at what he did, as much had I didn’t care for it. You guys have no one on your bench that can do the same.

This is because the R's have a long history of running unqualified people for elected office and then not understanding why things went wrong. Not that they're alone in that.

D's have a thing about abortion while R's have a thing about bible thumping. In some states, regardless of party, if you don't do the expected thing, you don't get elected. Period.

Note that neither thing makes a good political leader. It makes sheep who are weak and ineffectual at everything except gorging themselves at the public trough.

 

[RobDownSouth]

LOL. There ARE valid arguments, but that's not what the Democrats want. They literally want to stack the court to do away with the current slightly conservative majority.

Speculation.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

... We cannot afford to lose confidence in the Supreme Court.

Those on the left who have been crying over Thomas, and now want to pack the court so all decisions come out "their way, " need to remember Rome and why it fell. Because sure as God made Huns and barbarians, it'll happen here if the Left gets their wish.

Like we were forced to take a look at the FBI which in the eyes of the average American has gone from the original, respected and anticipated crime drama to True Crime junk TV.

Bogart to Tarantino

 

[ChloeTzang]

Speculation.

Nah. One must take Democrats at their word. Whatever they say the GOP are doing is what THEY are ACTUALLY doing, or trying to do. Rule of thumb that's generally correct.