Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: Again the threat of packing the Supreme Court appears

  1. #1
    NorseThing's Avatar Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    western usa
    Posts
    2,944

    Default Again the threat of packing the Supreme Court appears

    After watching Mitch McConnell transform the judiciary over the past four years, liberals are demanding a bold response. And Democrats are listening.

    Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand told POLITICO they would not rule out expanding the Supreme Court if elected president, showcasing a new level of interest in the Democratic field on an issue that has until recently remained on the fringes of debate.
    Read the full article at the link.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...-court-1223625

    Shades of FDR fighting with the Republicans and losing. Not that I would ever support any of the three mentioned candidates, but if Democrats think this is the way to win an election....

    If the Democrats want to claw back against the Pres. Trump presidency, try using the Congress to constructively legislate. These and other candidates already a part of Congress already have the tools and the office to do what they claim they 'might' do if President.

  2. #2
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    12,382

    Default Re: Again the threat of packing the Supreme Court appears

    If the Democrats want to claw back against the Pres. Trump presidency, try using the Congress to constructively legislate. These and other candidates already a part of Congress already have the tools and the office to do what they claim they 'might' do if President.
    If they are unified and carry as strong majority into the house and senate with a solid popular vote win (presidential and for congress) I would not have problem with it. After all people forget the court has no canonical number it been both bigger and smaller. Of course they won't even get a simply majority in the Senate. So its aspirational talk like the Green new Deal - nobody question that kind thing on Guns or Abortion from the right.The republican should have assumed such rumblings after their play on Garland. Likely a better choice is a retirement age if their concern is a packed conservative court. Since that would also prevent them form filling the bench with liberals for a long time with life appointments it would look more reasonable. I mean I'm a liberal and now I would hate to see RBG go. But I think maybe 70 or 75 is about as old as I what a justice to be.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Again the threat of packing the Supreme Court appears

    Quote Originally Posted by NorseThing View Post
    Read the full article at the link.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...-court-1223625

    Shades of FDR fighting with the Republicans and losing. Not that I would ever support any of the three mentioned candidates, but if Democrats think this is the way to win an election....
    Somehow I doubt this has anything to do with SCOTUS pensions...
    One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.

  4. #4
    NorseThing's Avatar Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    western usa
    Posts
    2,944

    Default Re: Again the threat of packing the Supreme Court appears

    More comment on the 'packing'.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ant...king-seriously

    THere can be some merit to discussing what the ideal size of the court should be, but it my be more important to take a look at the lower courts rather than tinker with the highest. If there is a problem of volume, it can be fixed with more courts at the lower levels. The highest court should be reserved for consistent application by the lower courts nd there is no real reason to change the composition or number of justices for a short term 'fix'. As the Fox News article states:

    Christopher Scalia, the son of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, told Fox News Wednesday that the idea of increasing the number of justices on the high court is "maybe an argument worth taking seriously," but added that some proposals by Democratic candidates were "just unconstitutional."

  5. #5

    Default Re: Again the threat of packing the Supreme Court appears

    Quote Originally Posted by NorseThing View Post
    More comment on the 'packing'.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ant...king-seriously

    THere can be some merit to discussing what the ideal size of the court should be, but it my be more important to take a look at the lower courts rather than tinker with the highest. If there is a problem of volume, it can be fixed with more courts at the lower levels. The highest court should be reserved for consistent application by the lower courts nd there is no real reason to change the composition or number of justices for a short term 'fix'. As the Fox News article states:
    Like I said. Modern packing whims have nothing to do with FDR packing whims. You really should read your history. Modern parties are worried about certain major decisions they want made or overturned or kept on the books. Where in the past there was a lack of the traditional retirements and it wasn't geared toward any particular political agenda. This is the second time I've posted this in a thread by you. But of course, when I write these posts in any thread you don't read or respond. Sure, first time expanding on a point by someone else. But hey. You just...post on the subject like the analogy between modern packing whims and FDR packing whims is at all...alike?
    Last edited by Gaidin; March 21, 2019 at 08:01 AM.
    One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.

  6. #6
    Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,175

    Default Re: Again the threat of packing the Supreme Court appears

    Between packing the Court, getting rid of the Electoral College and lowering the voting age to 16, the Democrats are really going all out to heal the partisan divide. These radical changes to long-standing political norms will surely bring the country together.

  7. #7
    Big War Bird's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    12,148

    Default Re: Again the threat of packing the Supreme Court appears

    Talk is cheap, and keep talking like that and even I will vote for Trump.
    As a teenager, I was taken to various houses and flats above takeaways in the north of England, to be beaten, tortured and raped over 100 times. I was called a “white slag” and “white ****” as they beat me.

    -Ella Hill

  8. #8
    NorseThing's Avatar Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    western usa
    Posts
    2,944

    Default Re: Again the threat of packing the Supreme Court appears

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidin View Post
    Like I said. Modern packing whims have nothing to do with FDR packing whims. You really should read your history. Modern parties are worried about certain major decisions they want made or overturned or kept on the books. Where in the past there was a lack of the traditional retirements and it wasn't geared toward any particular political agenda. This is the second time I've posted this in a thread by you. But of course, when I write these posts in any thread you don't read or respond. Sure, first time expanding on a point by someone else. But hey. You just...post on the subject like the analogy between modern packing whims and FDR packing whims is at all...alike?
    A Politico opinion piece announcing a forthcoming journal article does not really mean that it will stand up. The history is clear that FDR wanted to clear opposition no matter what else may have be of concern. Fortune was that a key member of his own party stopped him and his proposal in committee when another member of the Senate died. Now the Democrats want once again clear the opposition because the fully anticipate a majority in the US Senate if a Democrat is elected as President. Even if there is some real reform reason, I am betting that is political cover to make the next President unstoppable if a Democrat is elected. If a Republican is elected, the Democratic Party clamor will die down quickly. This is politics at it's worst.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Again the threat of packing the Supreme Court appears

    Quote Originally Posted by NorseThing View Post
    A Politico opinion piece announcing a forthcoming journal article does not really mean that it will stand up. The history is clear that FDR wanted to clear opposition no matter what else may have be of concern. Fortune was that a key member of his own party stopped him and his proposal in committee when another member of the Senate died. Now the Democrats want once again clear the opposition because the fully anticipate a majority in the US Senate if a Democrat is elected as President. Even if there is some real reform reason, I am betting that is political cover to make the next President unstoppable if a Democrat is elected. If a Republican is elected, the Democratic Party clamor will die down quickly. This is politics at it's worst.
    You want to start this thread on politico I’ll laugh and I backed what I said with facts.

    FDR packing is based on scotus retirement and not modern frackups.

    Try to convince me otherwise.

    I challenge you.
    Last edited by Gaidin; March 21, 2019 at 08:38 PM.
    One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.

  10. #10
    NorseThing's Avatar Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    western usa
    Posts
    2,944

    Default Re: Again the threat of packing the Supreme Court appears

    There can be multiple reasons why FDR did what he did. I am not saying your point is absolutely wrong, but it is a bit of a narrow perspective on why packing the court was attempted and then failed under FDR's watch.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Again the threat of packing the Supreme Court appears

    It didn't fail. It was dropped because they started retiring again after the congress gave them a retirement package. The only number added for packing was the number that didn't retire.

    The question here if you want a legit analogy. How many do the democrats think should've retired? And that's not republican justices. That includes RBG. She's fracking old.
    One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.

  12. #12
    Big War Bird's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    12,148

    Default Re: Again the threat of packing the Supreme Court appears

    I take it all these democrats would be just fine with Trump appointing a dozen new justices?
    As a teenager, I was taken to various houses and flats above takeaways in the north of England, to be beaten, tortured and raped over 100 times. I was called a “white slag” and “white ****” as they beat me.

    -Ella Hill

  13. #13

    Default Re: Again the threat of packing the Supreme Court appears

    Quote Originally Posted by Big War Bird View Post
    I take it all these democrats would be just fine with Trump appointing a dozen new justices?
    I'm sorry, wasn't the last person to severely damage the traditions of the supreme court a Republican (Mitch McConnell)? Methinks you don't actually care about non-partisan aspect of the SCOTUS.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  14. #14
    Big War Bird's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    12,148

    Default Re: Again the threat of packing the Supreme Court appears

    I like my judges as autistically conservative as I can get em, and It's not McConnell's fault democrats lost their minds and abandoned decency.
    As a teenager, I was taken to various houses and flats above takeaways in the north of England, to be beaten, tortured and raped over 100 times. I was called a “white slag” and “white ****” as they beat me.

    -Ella Hill

  15. #15
    NorseThing's Avatar Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    western usa
    Posts
    2,944

    Default Re: Again the threat of packing the Supreme Court appears

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidin View Post
    It didn't fail. It was dropped because they started retiring again after the congress gave them a retirement package. The only number added for packing was the number that didn't retire.

    The question here if you want a legit analogy. How many do the democrats think should've retired? And that's not republican justices. That includes RBG. She's fracking old.
    A very good question. I suspect we are just seeing campaign rhetorical hopping rather than an serious discussion. The problem is that such rhetoric has implications after an election, in this case after 2020 if the Democrats win the US Senate and the White House. This is why this reform talk is bogus. I do not trust either party with campaign rhetoric, but then what are we to believe before we vote?

    About the retiring justices and FDR then able to nominate his own. From wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankl...urt_candidates

    I actually did not realize that until the packing the court attempt, FDR had not a single supreme court nominee. I always knew he had several (he was in office long enough to nearly replace the court) but it was from 1937 and forward. A huge number in so very few years. I learned a thing today. Thanks for making me take a look.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Again the threat of packing the Supreme Court appears

    Quote Originally Posted by Big War Bird View Post
    I like my judges as autistically conservative as I can get em, and It's not McConnell's fault democrats lost their minds and abandoned decency.
    Sure, but if you are going to call out Democrat partisanship while being a rabid partisan yourself, you look pretty silly.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Again the threat of packing the Supreme Court appears

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Sure, but if you are going to call out Democrat partisanship while being a rabid partisan yourself, you look pretty silly.
    The democrats best bet are to just new establish norms and stick with them to show that they are above partisanship. Sure, they might not be able to govern efficiently the first 4-8 years, but its the only way to stop the downward spiral of norm destruction and vaporization of mutual tolerance. After that, then try a less aggressive approach towards fixing the courts such as term limits and seek to restore a culture that the Courts are impartial.

    If Democrats follow suit with aggressively trying to erode norms, we will quickly see ourselves backsliding into authoritarianism. It just leads to an even less functional government than we already have, and it will make the parties hate each other even more. In the case of the Supreme Court, it will become viewed more of a partisan body used to prevent good governance and promptly will lose its legitimacy.

    That leads to a need to break even more norms to the point where the constitution and Supreme Court will be pushed aside in order to properly govern. Remember the Chadha case and how the ruling on single house vetos was (and still is) completely ignored due to the necessity of their existence for good governance? Parties will do the same thing if they feel that the Supreme Court isn't being impartial.


    Paper constitutions are only as strong as the will of the people that backs them. There is a reason why modified United States constitutions that are adopted by other countries get violated into oblivion. Without good governmental norms, we are doomed.
    Last edited by ♔The Black Knight♔; March 22, 2019 at 08:44 PM.

  18. #18
    Big War Bird's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    12,148

    Default Re: Again the threat of packing the Supreme Court appears

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Sure, but if you are going to call out Democrat partisanship while being a rabid partisan yourself, you look pretty silly.
    I said quite a while ago I won't weep when democrats control the Presidency and Senate and appoint judges they like to the bench. I wasn't assenting to court packing. I don't want Trump to do it either.

    If Republicans were smart, and a very few of them are, they would introduce a bill to set the number of justices to 15 effective immediately, and dare the democrats to vote for it.
    As a teenager, I was taken to various houses and flats above takeaways in the north of England, to be beaten, tortured and raped over 100 times. I was called a “white slag” and “white ****” as they beat me.

    -Ella Hill

  19. #19

    Default Re: Again the threat of packing the Supreme Court appears

    Quote Originally Posted by NorseThing View Post
    About the retiring justices and FDR then able to nominate his own. From wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankl...urt_candidates

    I actually did not realize that until the packing the court attempt, FDR had not a single supreme court nominee. I always knew he had several (he was in office long enough to nearly replace the court) but it was from 1937 and forward. A huge number in so very few years. I learned a thing today. Thanks for making me take a look.
    His packing were about the people that were going to typically retire in the 1930's. And before you throw the Constitution at me, this is just how it worked back then. People retired after a time. Meh. Their retirement was screwed, so by constitution they didn't retire. They kept working. And FDR figured out a different thing.

    Trying to tie this to, well...today...is...wrong. The parties themselves are nuts.
    One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Again the threat of packing the Supreme Court appears

    Quote Originally Posted by Big War Bird View Post
    I said quite a while ago I won't weep when democrats control the Presidency and Senate and appoint judges they like to the bench. I wasn't assenting to court packing. I don't want Trump to do it either.
    Ok, well the rest of America will weep when we never have a SCOTUS nominee (possibly even lower courts) confirmed by an opposition senate ever again. Just going to have to go some years with an even number of judges and deal with those issues, I guess. Oh well, as long as it means a specific president didn't get to appoint anybody at all.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •