dem lawmakers reintroduce 2023 Judiciary Act, to expand SCOTUS to 13

[butters]

introduced by Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts , he cited the problems with clarence thomas as the main reason to push this forward now.

Other Democrats supporting the Judiciary Act are Senators Tina Smith of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, as well as Representatives Jerrold Nadler of New York, Hank Johnson of Georgia, Cori Bush of Missouri and Adam Schiff of California.

The Judiciary Act was first introduced in 2021. In its current form, the legislation would expand the Supreme Court by adding four additional seats to create a 13-justice bench.

"When something is broken, we don't just agonize; we organize. We don't have the luxury of waiting to see if the court will issue radical, partisan rulings that shift the foundations of freedom under our feet. We now know it will happen. It's only a question of when and who the court is going to target next," Markey said.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...&cvid=257d189de7264ab1eaf70e72e7b57e93&ei=156

 

[coati]

Makes sense. The Federalist Society was successful in getting just enough ignorant Deplorables to take advantage of our antiquated electoral system so that Trump could get one term and stack the Court with Federalist hacks. Those hacks have now stripped the Court of any ethical boundaries, withdrawn reproductive rights for women, and ushered in an era of bloody domestic conflict, all to enrich the billionaire class.

At least some lawmakers recognize that the Court is now a threat to human rights in America rather than the defender of those rights.

Drain the swamp.

 

[Chobham]

*chuckle* Who didn't see that coming?

 

[Lazaran]

*chuckle* Who didn't see that coming?

Quoted for posterity and stupidity ^.

“Who didn’t see that coming”???

More like: Who didn’t see that HAPPEN when “republicans” obstructed appointments and changed rules to pack the court(.

Chobby

 

[RobDownSouth]

*chuckle* Who didn't see that coming?

Historically, there has been one "Justice" per Federal court district. There have been 13 Federal court districts for quite a while now. Your point, chuckles?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Good luck. The prospects of the Judiciary Act of 2023 going anywhere are just as promising as the Judiciary Acts of 2021 and 2022. In other words, DOA.

 

[Pad_Foot]

DOA
Yup
First ? The filibuster
Just a really stupid Senate rule

 

[coati]

Good luck. The prospects of the Judiciary Act of 2023 going anywhere are just as promising as the Judiciary Acts of 2021 and 2022. In other words, DOA.

These lawmakers are just setting the stage. What the MAGAts don't realize is that they are currently facing a tidal wave of reaction to their fascist movement. The clueless MAGAts are still operating on the assumption that the 2016 election was a 'trend", rather than the biggest fluke in American history.

People don't tolerate having their rights stripped away.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

These lawmakers are just setting the stage. What the MAGAts don't realize is that they are currently facing a tidal wave of reaction to their fascist movement. The clueless MAGAts are still operating on the assumption that the 2016 election was a 'trend", rather than the biggest fluke in American history.

People don't tolerate having their rights stripped away.

As they’ve done twice before, they are setting the stage for another silly bill to quietly go nowhere, but good luck with your hopes and dreams.

 

[ll74]

The minority party introduces vanity legislation to campaign on in 2024

 

[adrina]

Needs to happen. But won't. Not enough people vote. And it doesn't "own the libs" so for the GOP it's a non-starter.

 

[HisArpy]

Needs to happen. But won't. Not enough people vote. And it doesn't "own the libs" so for the GOP it's a non-starter.

It's not about people voting, it's about Dems not understanding that the monster they create is going to come back to destroy them at some point.

Or do you not understand how the political pendulum swings even after seeing it in action over Harry Reid nuking the filibuster rule for cabinet nominees giving McConnell the power to do the same for judicial nominees?

Packing the court solves nothing because it ASSUMES that the new justices will reliably vote for Democrat policy in perpetuity. Just like how everyone (including me) didn't believe that the Court would strike down Roe, the dream of a perpetual Democrat controlled Supreme Court is fantasy.

But some people are so dumb they don't understand that what they do today will come back to bite them tomorrow because Karma is the world's biggest bitch. So, good luck with that.

 

[adrina]

Cut to the chase, tell me to go fuck myself.

The rest is a waste of time and energy.

 

[HisArpy]

Cut to the chase, tell me to go fuck myself.

The rest is a waste of time and energy.

If I thought you were beyond redemption I would.

Notice that I have not.

The fact is, even people on your side of the aisle are trying to tell you that this is a horrible idea and you're not listening to either them or anyone else because you "need" to do this in order to satisfy your addiction to your TDS.

That's a horrible way to be and it only shows that it's time for political rehab. It's past time actually, but the Durham report should be your wake up call that the world you envision doesn't exist and you need to get politically clean and sober. Otherwise you'll do what all junkies do eventually.

My only concern is that you don't take all the rest of us with you when you jump off that cliff. You might not care, but the rest of us do.

 

[adrina]

You assume I find you worth my time.

To repeat: get your meltdown over with, tell me to go fuck myself and move on.

 

[Lazaran]

Cut to the chase, tell me to go fuck myself.

The rest is a waste of time and energy.

I’ve earned the coveted Harpy “IGGY”, but I never earned a “GIO FUCK YOURSELF!!!”.

I’m curious to know how Harpy’s rating system works.

 

[Dribble]

Cut to the chase, tell me to go fuck myself.

The rest is a waste of time and energy.

Why? Trying to enlighten you is like trying to enlighten BB.

Give people a reason to vote and historically they have. Give them the "well vote for us because they are worse" only works once. You burned your bridges...don't cry about it...rebuild them.

 

[Rightguide]

Markey has always been a radical subversive.

 

[Lazaran]

Why? Trying to enlighten you is like trying to enlighten BB.

Give people a reason to vote and historically they have. Give them the "well vote for us because they are worse" only works once. You burned your bridges...don't cry about it...rebuild them.

WTAF???

GTFO

JFC

 

[HisArpy]

You assume I find you worth my time.

To repeat: get your meltdown over with, tell me to go fuck myself and move on.

I don't care if you think I'm a lost cause, it's what I believe that's important. In this case I believe you aren't hopeless. Because to believe otherwise is to use you as a throw away human being. Something I know you aren't even if you want to make other people think so.

It's not that hard to get help and I'm saying that you should reach out for it.

 

[adrina]

Blah blah blah.

On both counts. Or to both accounts. Eh, whatevs.

 

[KeithD]

Historically, there has been one "Justice" per Federal court district. There have been 13 Federal court districts for quite a while now. Your point, chuckles?

With thirteen federal court districts to cover, requiring a Supreme Court justice to supervise a federal district, I don't see why an expansion to thirteen on the bench should have opposition other than party politics. If the Republicans had been smart, they should have tried to get it done themselves early in Trump's administration.

 

[Dribble]

WTAF???

GTFO

JFC

Yea...you another one of the deniers? Wouldn't surprise me. Cry that certain population demographics are "failing" the Democratic Party. Yet...what have they asked for have you given them?

See...I accept the failure we have made. I know how to fix it. But more of the same won't work. Kids are way smarter than we ever were...are...when it comes to dealing with life

 

[Rightguide]

Historically, there has been one "Justice" per Federal court district. There have been 13 Federal court districts for quite a while now. Your point, chuckles?

Historically you've always been wrong. There are 94 federal court districts organized into 12 regional circuits and 13 Appellate Courts that sit below the SCOTUS. There is no reason to have more than 9 seats on the Supreme Court.

 

[ll74]

Historically you've always been wrong. There are 94 federal court districts organized into 12 regional circuits and 13 Appellate Courts that sit below the SCOTUS. There is no reason to have more than 9 seats on the Supreme Court.

There is no reason to have 9 seats.