Jump to content


The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, admo said:

 

But why now?  Aren't liberals saying they want to create a new developing situation where more democratic SCJ will rule on the SC ?  I.E. "packing the courts" in favor of the democratic party?  I mean, does that plan not sound like a new court dictatorship in the making?  Just curious why that is now tolerant, cool and OK to do so :dunno

How is adding more justices to a court like a dictatorship? It's actually more representative.

 

And maybe take a look at what's happened for Merrick Garland and happening for Amy Barrett to see that political packing of the SC is happening already.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment

10 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

How is adding more justices to a court like a dictatorship? It's actually more representative.

 

If the roles were reversed, and Trump wanted to pack the courts, would you be this open to the idea? I have my doubts that you would be. 

 

There is no 'real' reason to add justices, other than Biden and Co don't currently like the balance of the court. That's the reason, and it's not a good enough reason.

  • Plus1 2
  • Fire 2
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

If the roles were reversed, and Trump wanted to pack the courts, would you be this open to the idea? I have my doubts that you would be. 

 

There is no 'real' reason to add justices, other than Biden and Co don't currently like the balance of the court. That's the reason, and it's not a good enough reason.

If you mean add more justices, then I'd want to know the reason for doing it. If the opposing party had just "packed" the court by refusing the other party to put a justice on the court (Merrick Garland) for reasons that they then abandoned to put their own justice (ACB) on the court, then yes, I'm totally in favor of it.

 

Ideally neither party would be politicizing the court (or even better there wouldn't be just 2 parties). Practically we need to change the laws to prevent the toddlers in the Senate from doing this nonsense going forward. Unfortunately, we have to undo the recent packing by the Republicans by at least balancing the court by party nomination. Then we need to eliminate the advantage of stalling or ramming through a nominee. I support term limits and a mandated rotation (like replace the longest sitting justice every 2 years).

  • Plus1 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

If the roles were reversed, and Trump wanted to pack the courts, would you be this open to the idea? I have my doubts that you would be. 

 

There is no 'real' reason to add justices, other than Biden and Co don't currently like the balance of the court. That's the reason, and it's not a good enough reason.

 

 

The GOP stopped playing fair with the Supreme Court in 2016 and have continued to do so today. There is no law saying you can't vote on a judge close to an election but the Republicans decided they couldn't do it with 10 or whatever months left. Then changed their mind when it was convenient for them. There is also no law saying there has to be a maximum of 9 justices. Neither is worse than the other and they're all legal, except the Republicans struck 1st.

FWIW I don't think the Democrats should add another SCJ. But doing so wouldn't be worse than what the Republicans did. What they should do is put some of this into law. Put a # of months before the election you can still add a SCJ, and limit the # to a maximum of 9.

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment

It takes zero imagination to understand why the Democrats would consider packing the court. You have to have been under a rock the past six years to not see what's been happening.

 

It's not just the Supreme Court, McConnell purposefully blocked Obama's Circuit Court nominations at historic levels.

 

It's hypocritical to suddenly cry foul about judge appointments.

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment

4 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

If the roles were reversed, and Trump wanted to pack the courts, would you be this open to the idea? I have my doubts that you would be. 

 

There is no 'real' reason to add justices, other than Biden and Co don't currently like the balance of the court. That's the reason, and it's not a good enough reason.

 

A purposefully radicalized SCOTUS (and lower federal judiciary system as well) cranking out highly partisan decisions that do not align with broader public opinion is a DAMN good reason to reform the judiciary, including expanding it.

 

And the crazy thing is many of us would rather not do so. But we were pushed into doing so.

 

  

4 hours ago, RedDenver said:

I support term limits and a mandated rotation (like replace the longest sitting justice every 2 years).

 

I like this. The courts cannot and should not continue getting increasingly partisan.

 

The irony is after years and years of howling about "legislating from the bench," that is exactly what the GOP is now hoping to do.

 

  • Plus1 5
Link to comment
1 hour ago, knapplc said:

I think they should add four. And they should reduce appointments from lifetime to 12 years.



I've changed my mind on this a couple times. The problem with doing this is the Republicans will then add 50 the next time they get the chance. So I think the Democrats should not add any and limit the # to 9, and also make a law that states when you can and cannot add a SCJ, add laws for how much time they must be vetted, and limit the amount of time a judge can be a SCJ.

Then the question is how a term limit applies to the judges already sitting. I don't think they should proposing kicking them all off if they've been there more than 12 years, but I like the idea above about removing the ones who have been there longest, gradually. Remove the longest sitting judge every 4 years until the lifetime appointments are all gone. Then remove at year 12 going forward.

Link to comment

Problem is, the entire goal of the last six years has been to overturn Roe vs. Wade, Obergfell, geld or eliminate the EPA, not to mention institute half a dozen more Citizens United cases. This country cannot afford to go backward 70 years. Cases for all of these are already percolating in the circuits.

 

There's almost no time to waste. The Republicans have been dealing from the bottom of the deck for too long not to do something immediately.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Problem is, the entire goal of the last six years has been to overturn Roe vs. Wade, Obergfell, geld or eliminate the EPA, not to mention institute half a dozen more Citizens United cases. This country cannot afford to go backward 70 years. Cases for all of these are already percolating in the circuits.

 

There's almost no time to waste. The Republicans have been dealing from the bottom of the deck for too long not to do something immediately.



That's true, but the Senate can easily move back to the Republicans with more population shift, and they will add however many judges they want without a 2nd thought if the Democrats add more judges right now. They could have added more judges over the past 4 years but didn't. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

That's true, but the Senate can easily move back to the Republicans with more population shift, and they will add however many judges they want without a 2nd thought if the Democrats add more judges right now. They could have added more judges over the past 4 years but didn't. 

 

That also is true, and could easily happen. Or, as I suspect, more rational heads will prevail and we'll have a Republican party that more resembles what it was when I was a kid and not this far-right radical garbage. At which point they may consider paring down the SC to current levels.

 

Then again, there's nothing about the number of justices on the court that is sacred, and it's changed many times through this country's history.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Ummmm.....

 

Lol. A sitting justice died.... Replacing that judge isn't packing the courts.

 

And for the record, I agree that the GOP acted conveniently in 2016, and are now.... But, they did, and aren't currently doing anything that the Democrats wouldn't do, or would have done, if they were in a position to do so.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

Then again, there's nothing about the number of justices on the court that is sacred, and it's changed many times through this country's history.

 

I agree. I only take issues with Biden's plans to pack the courts because his reason for doing so is simply because his party's interests are outnumbered. I don't like the precedent it sets. A precedent that the GOP would surely take advantage at their first opportunity.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...