Left-wingers say, 'If you don't vote our way, PACK THAT COURT!'

[score_keeper]

AOC, left-wing Democrats renew push to pack Supreme Court after Texas abortion ruling

Democrats are reiterating their calls to pack the Supreme Court, demanding action after the court declined to halt Texas' controversial abortion law on Wednesday.

And, of course, AOC and her donkey-sized mouth are at the forefront.

 

[pecksniff]

Merely an overdue correction, after years of packing the federal bench with Federalist Society whackos.

 

[Cubantripod]

Merely an overdue correction, after years of packing the federal bench with Federalist Society whackos.

Then the Court becomes a rubber stamp of whatever party is in power. It will be increased or decreased by the ruling party as it sees fit. Perhaps you should focus on winning elections instead.

Additionally, 254 of the 264 Trump appointees were either red as "qualified" or "well qualified" by the ABA.
https://ballotpedia.org/ABA_ratings_during_the_Trump_administration

 

[BidudeinWi]

Then the Court becomes a rubber stamp of whatever party is in power. It will be increased or decreased by the ruling party as it sees fit. Perhaps you should focus on winning elections instead.

The ONLY way the Left can win an election after 2020, is to cheat their asses off. Let’s see, winning LibTard campaign slogans:

1. Higher gas prices are good!
2. Covid is bad, but open borders and “offering” a vaccine to the illegal motherfuckers breaking U.S. Frderal Law, all good!
3. We gave muslim terrorists $90+ BILLION of high-tech military equipment!(cuz Kenyan born, muslim, married to Big Mike Obama said so!)
4. Our military is finally Woke!
5. Global Warming, caused by you fuckers driving your SUV’S, is forcing us to ban automobiles, planes or ANY internal combustion engine. (Except of course for us politicians, Hollywood elites, and Big Tech elite. Just you little people can’t drive cars. Ride trains, peasants!

Yup, maybe cheat again, fucktards! Your political platform SUCKS and you asswipes know it!

 

[Philthy_Phil]

I say go for it. Trump packed it so if it's legal for them to do it, pack that bitch.

 

[pecksniff]

[insert your own "fudge packer" joke here]

 

[score_keeper]

Some of you don't know what court packing means.

It's increasing the number of judges in order to cause the ideological makeup of the Court to shift.

Appointing a person to an open seat is not court packing.

 

[pecksniff]

The ONLY way the Left can win an election after 2020, is to cheat their asses off. Let’s see, winning LibTard campaign slogans:

1. Higher gas prices are good!
2. Covid is bad, but open borders and “offering” a vaccine to the illegal motherfuckers breaking U.S. Frderal Law, all good!
3. We gave muslim terrorists $90+ BILLION of high-tech military equipment!(cuz Kenyan born, muslim, married to Big Mike Obama said so!)
4. Our military is finally Woke!
5. Global Warming, caused by you fuckers driving your SUV’S, is forcing us to ban automobiles, planes or ANY internal combustion engine. (Except of course for us politicians, Hollywood elites, and Big Tech elite. Just you little people can’t drive cars. Ride trains, peasants!

Yup, maybe cheat again, fucktards! Your political platform SUCKS and you asswipes know it!

Post #6 makes more sense.

 

[CornusKousa]

I say go for it. Trump packed it so if it's legal for them to do it, pack that bitch.

No, Trump did not pack it.

He seated justices, not the same thing, ignorant (D)ipshit.

 

[Champakian]

Then the Court becomes a rubber stamp of whatever party is in power. It will be increased or decreased by the ruling party as it sees fit. Perhaps you should focus on winning elections instead.

Additionally, 254 of the 264 Trump appointees were either red as "qualified" or "well qualified" by the ABA.
https://ballotpedia.org/ABA_ratings_during_the_Trump_administration

When they add the 1024th justice, the thing might become a bit unwieldy...

Just like any commodity, politics follows a lot of the basic laws of economics.
If you are providing the consumer (voter) with a superior product,
then they will vote for you, put you in power and mitigate
the desire to force outcomes via the judiciary...

Those focused on the courts to indirectly
implement policy are those who lack
a viable and popular message
that people will vote for.

As it is, with the Left and its proclivity to not just virtue signal
but trumpet its desire to manage people's lives for them,
they give the people an urgent reason to vote
against them and their policy "wish list."

 

[Champakian]

No, Trump did not pack it.

He seated justices, not the same thing, ignorant (D)ipshit.

The most stringent and adamant voices are usually driven
by an ignorance-driven passion that is sans reason;
like the fans of the Washington Football Team.

 

[pecksniff]

Just like any commodity, politics follows a lot of the basic laws of economics.
If you are providing the consumer (voter) with a superior product,
then they will vote for you, put you in power and mitigate
the desire to force outcomes via the judiciary...

Not quite the same. The public's judgment of what constitutes a "superior product" in politics is much, much more complicated than equivalent judgment in the commercial marketplace. People are capable of voting against their own economic interest -- even as they themselves perceive it -- for cultural reasons.

 

[ll74]

SCOTUS numbers are not fixed or defined outside of legislation that can be altered at any time.

Whether someone wants to or even does just means that old methods might be outdated and needing updating.

But that's what debate is for, and certainly what elections are for - you can always vote for someone else and help lobby for their election to protect what you believe is correct.

The Constitution gives a framework and the people decide what it means to them during the current timeframe.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Packing the court just means putting more of "your guy" (generalized, not gender-based) in a position of power. Trump did so more than any other President. He could've added more if the party wanted it....but the stacked court was already achieved....

 

[pecksniff]

There is no constitutional reason why Congress cannot impose a retirement age on the federal bench.