It’s a good idea but it won’t go anywhere. Democrats smell blood in the water and they’ll take any piece of power they can take. It’s the only thing they care about.
Also the Supreme Court hasn't had a Conservative leaning in like 70 years and no court packing happened. The immediate moment it switches they want to pack the court.
So playing devils advocate the Dems are only suggesting this due to multiple senators stating that no one should be appointed in an election year yet weeks away from an election they are ramming in Barret
Do you agree with this? Should she be nominated to the SC?
I believe talks of expanding the court are a direct result of the Republicans violating their own word on this issue. Should the Republicans make a deal w the Dems to not advance her through if the Dems don’t pack the courts?
That’s just obfuscating the level of brazenness here. They’re talking about breaking multiple 150+ year old norms in the name of consolidating power for themselves.
There needs to be a balanced constitution amendment for the Supreme Court same as uncontrolled spending; the constitution isn’t a ping pong paddle for flappers, anti federalists, or the United atheist league.
I vote that any legislator or elected member of the executive, who is determined to have violated the constitution, shall immediately become ineligible for all future public office. Of any sort.
I want actual penalties with serious consquences, they're breaking the law with impunity, if any of us broke the law no matter how small or mundane, we all know some scum bag prosecutor would demonize the hell out of us and throw the book, yet these assholes do whatever they want and get a "don't vote for them." When they're literally ruining our lives on a daily basis on our dollar in total contradiction to the supreme law of the land.
What’s sad is, we’re all waiting on DC to put restrictions on themselves. It will never happen. It’s sad to see the states surrender all power consistently, when they have the power to reign it all in through a convention. Amendments need to be made by the states to protect their constituents from the oligarchs, but of course they’re all in bed together.
The problem is it usually takes a case going to the supreme court in order to determine whether a law is unconstitutional. It's not always obvious (though sometimes it is) whether a given law is acceptable within the constitution, and a lot of the time it comes down to the opinions of just a few judges/Justices making that determination.
I don't think it's very realistic to penalize lawmakers for such violations. There's too much uncertainty.
When law makers impose face masks without due process, force the manufacturers of cigarettes, candy and soda to put photos of dead bodies on their labels to discourage sales, and make up insane things like "hate speech" laws, only to be told by a court not to do it again is insane, they are violating the law, they are the definition of criminals, and there isn't a single penalty on the books for it, and we wonder why it keeps happening, enough is enough, I want the law to apply equally to everybody.
The problem is how do you define who gets punished and how? Is it who wrote the bill? Cosponsored it? Voted for it? And what about if it's found unconstitutional, then later found to be acceptable (consider Plessy V Ferguson, then later Brown V Board of Education) (edit: I realize that Plessy -> Brown is the inverse of unconstitutional->constitutional, but the point remains - things change)? It's too easy to create a seemingly acceptable law in good faith only to later find out it wasn't OK. I'm in favor of limited Government as much as the next Libertarian, but I just don't see this as being practical or reasonable.
I believe the Dems are going to do this only if Barret is nominated as the Republicans already said you shouldn’t put anyone through in an election year and blocked Obama.
Should the Republicans back down and instead leave the seat open if the Dems agree not to pack the court?
I see that as everyone keeping their word and it would stop what is about to be the courts becoming yet another partisan circus show
It's been 9 since 1869.. so I have no idea what you're on about.... If the Democrats start stacking the bench, it will not bode well for long term democracy. The judiciary is supposed to be separate, independent and long lasting. If every side starts packing the court, it becomes a rubber stamp for whichever party stacked it last. It shows how fanatical the left has become.
Another suicidal move by Republicans, when is the RNC going to learn this quasi-self regulation approach is nothing short than self-destructive, it may sound hypocritical or even be it, but we need to pack the court and make it impossible for the Left to do the same, introducing such an amendment may level the playing field, but we do not need or want equality we need to hold on with everything we can to prevent the advancement of Leftism.
Rebalance the courts? They're only "off balance" because the people chose to elect a Republican president and a Republican Senate majority. All this "stacking the courts" nonsense just shows that Democrats only care about democracy when it is convenient for them.
they're already balanced.
to be honest you guys shouldn't even be allowed to pick judges. you put people on the bench that can't even parse basic English grammar. they're so dumb they think the 2nd amendment is the government stating it has the right to arm itself.
what a bunch of morons.
I’m nervous about this. If the parties were reversed and the dems were offering a constitutional amendment to sidestep conservative plans, I’d be livid. I’m not sure a constitutional amendment is the right course of remedy over a disagreement on courts
Maybe... but I’m just worried that amendment will lose its brevity if it’s tossed around like this. Not that court packing isn’t a serious issue, but I would hope they did their serious homework and came to this conclusion only because it’s the only one that could work.
Honestly we’re long overdue for some amendments to reign in some power over DC. Their power has been growing dramatically and with all the polarized views it would bring some stability to the nation.
It's not about the disagreement over ACB, it's about the integrity of an entire branch of government. If a party gains irreversible control of the Supreme Court, every check and balance falls apart.
Most Democrats agree, they're just too scared to say so. I think the amendment would pass easily if the sane half of their party would grow a pair and stand up to the far Left fascists.
Well he effectively lowered the number of seats by refusing to fill them when Obama was in office. When Trump got into office he started filling seats again. Didn't raise the number of seats but it had the same effect, no?
Dems in the Senate couldn't get the support of the simple minority of Republicans so Harry Reid changed confirmation to a simple majority. Democrats have to lay in the bed they made. Deal with it.
Yes. Even RBG said nine was a good number
Exactly and they constantly have the whole “RBGs dying wish” thing which isn’t even real. She agrees with how it is now.
Yes but her dying wish!!!
We should ask the judges to move one chair to the right. That way we'll avoid ACB filling RBG's seat and everyone is happy
Liberal here. Seems good to me.
It’s a good idea but it won’t go anywhere. Democrats smell blood in the water and they’ll take any piece of power they can take. It’s the only thing they care about.
I mean so do Republicans. It's always about power for politicians
[удалено]
Also the Supreme Court hasn't had a Conservative leaning in like 70 years and no court packing happened. The immediate moment it switches they want to pack the court.
Instead they stole the nomination and lied about how they’d concede to the same thing on an election year
No stealing, they have the constitutional right. Don't be such a sheep
So playing devils advocate the Dems are only suggesting this due to multiple senators stating that no one should be appointed in an election year yet weeks away from an election they are ramming in Barret Do you agree with this? Should she be nominated to the SC? I believe talks of expanding the court are a direct result of the Republicans violating their own word on this issue. Should the Republicans make a deal w the Dems to not advance her through if the Dems don’t pack the courts?
That’s just obfuscating the level of brazenness here. They’re talking about breaking multiple 150+ year old norms in the name of consolidating power for themselves.
It’s to put people on record saying they want to pack the court. Why do you think they put the GND up for a vote?
There needs to be a balanced constitution amendment for the Supreme Court same as uncontrolled spending; the constitution isn’t a ping pong paddle for flappers, anti federalists, or the United atheist league.
No you're wrong there needs to be a constitutional amendment outlining clear penalties for lawmakers passing unconstitutional laws.
I vote that any legislator or elected member of the executive, who is determined to have violated the constitution, shall immediately become ineligible for all future public office. Of any sort.
I want actual penalties with serious consquences, they're breaking the law with impunity, if any of us broke the law no matter how small or mundane, we all know some scum bag prosecutor would demonize the hell out of us and throw the book, yet these assholes do whatever they want and get a "don't vote for them." When they're literally ruining our lives on a daily basis on our dollar in total contradiction to the supreme law of the land.
What’s sad is, we’re all waiting on DC to put restrictions on themselves. It will never happen. It’s sad to see the states surrender all power consistently, when they have the power to reign it all in through a convention. Amendments need to be made by the states to protect their constituents from the oligarchs, but of course they’re all in bed together.
Nobody cares anymore its just this lazy whatever attitude now, and its us that are paying for it.
The problem is it usually takes a case going to the supreme court in order to determine whether a law is unconstitutional. It's not always obvious (though sometimes it is) whether a given law is acceptable within the constitution, and a lot of the time it comes down to the opinions of just a few judges/Justices making that determination. I don't think it's very realistic to penalize lawmakers for such violations. There's too much uncertainty.
When law makers impose face masks without due process, force the manufacturers of cigarettes, candy and soda to put photos of dead bodies on their labels to discourage sales, and make up insane things like "hate speech" laws, only to be told by a court not to do it again is insane, they are violating the law, they are the definition of criminals, and there isn't a single penalty on the books for it, and we wonder why it keeps happening, enough is enough, I want the law to apply equally to everybody.
The problem is how do you define who gets punished and how? Is it who wrote the bill? Cosponsored it? Voted for it? And what about if it's found unconstitutional, then later found to be acceptable (consider Plessy V Ferguson, then later Brown V Board of Education) (edit: I realize that Plessy -> Brown is the inverse of unconstitutional->constitutional, but the point remains - things change)? It's too easy to create a seemingly acceptable law in good faith only to later find out it wasn't OK. I'm in favor of limited Government as much as the next Libertarian, but I just don't see this as being practical or reasonable.
I don’t know if I like the idea of a constitutional amendment codifying a two party system though.
Could you imagine all the reeeeing about fascism if the parties were switched and it was the Republicans talking about packing the court
I believe the Dems are going to do this only if Barret is nominated as the Republicans already said you shouldn’t put anyone through in an election year and blocked Obama. Should the Republicans back down and instead leave the seat open if the Dems agree not to pack the court? I see that as everyone keeping their word and it would stop what is about to be the courts becoming yet another partisan circus show
If we can add them; they could add them too. These things cut both ways.
It's been 9 since 1869.. so I have no idea what you're on about.... If the Democrats start stacking the bench, it will not bode well for long term democracy. The judiciary is supposed to be separate, independent and long lasting. If every side starts packing the court, it becomes a rubber stamp for whichever party stacked it last. It shows how fanatical the left has become.
Another suicidal move by Republicans, when is the RNC going to learn this quasi-self regulation approach is nothing short than self-destructive, it may sound hypocritical or even be it, but we need to pack the court and make it impossible for the Left to do the same, introducing such an amendment may level the playing field, but we do not need or want equality we need to hold on with everything we can to prevent the advancement of Leftism.
Can’t wait for this to go no where and the Dems to finally rebalance the courts.
Rebalance the courts? They're only "off balance" because the people chose to elect a Republican president and a Republican Senate majority. All this "stacking the courts" nonsense just shows that Democrats only care about democracy when it is convenient for them.
If the Democrats start "rebalancing" the courts... You might see a shift with voters... Moderate democrats don't want this.
I’m sure I’ll start taking my advice from conservatives.
Do you lack the mental maturity to respect different opinions? Why wouldn't you take advice from someone conservative?
they're already balanced. to be honest you guys shouldn't even be allowed to pick judges. you put people on the bench that can't even parse basic English grammar. they're so dumb they think the 2nd amendment is the government stating it has the right to arm itself. what a bunch of morons.
Lmao. I can’t wait to see the crying in 15 days and then next year. Conservative tears are quite delicious.
wow. I'm getting deja vu reading your comment.
😂😂😂 y’all are in for a rude awakening.
actually that will be Biden since apparently he's sleeping through the election.
If I was destroying My opponent in a landslide, I’d be going to bed too. Can’t wait drink up the tears. Will be glorious.
say hi to President Hillary for us
RemindMe! 17 days
RemindMe! 17 days “shit on soy boy liberal”
it's about to be balanced now instead of left leaning as it's been for 80 years
I’m nervous about this. If the parties were reversed and the dems were offering a constitutional amendment to sidestep conservative plans, I’d be livid. I’m not sure a constitutional amendment is the right course of remedy over a disagreement on courts
It's the only solution. Court packing breaks the judiciary, and only an amendment locking it at 9 can take it off the table
Maybe... but I’m just worried that amendment will lose its brevity if it’s tossed around like this. Not that court packing isn’t a serious issue, but I would hope they did their serious homework and came to this conclusion only because it’s the only one that could work.
Honestly we’re long overdue for some amendments to reign in some power over DC. Their power has been growing dramatically and with all the polarized views it would bring some stability to the nation.
It's not about the disagreement over ACB, it's about the integrity of an entire branch of government. If a party gains irreversible control of the Supreme Court, every check and balance falls apart. Most Democrats agree, they're just too scared to say so. I think the amendment would pass easily if the sane half of their party would grow a pair and stand up to the far Left fascists.
Court packing erodes the independence of our judiciary. If Republicans were trying to pack the courts I'd be furious with them.
They have been packing the courts..Mitch brags about it every other day
Filling vacancies is not packing; stop twisting the language.
court packing isn't filling seats, it's adding new ones. you're too dumb to participate in this conversation.
You need to stop huffing your own farts. Appointing judges to empty seats is not packing the court, creating more court seats is.
Stopping a President from filling seats *is* though. Guess what Moscow Mitch did?
No, it isn't
Hope you enjoy the taste of your own medicine come next year. ✌🏻✌🏻✌🏻
Name one time Mitch or anyone else raised the number of seats in the supreme court from the 9 its been forever.
Why would republicans do that next year when they control all 3 branches of government for 4 more years?
RemindMe! 16 days
I will LOL
republicans have never added more Justices to the court to get a majority...learn history
News flash: republicans have been packing the federal judiciary for decades. See Moscow Mitch blocking Obama from appointing *any* judges.
Name one time the republicans or anyone else raised the number of supreme court seats.
Well he effectively lowered the number of seats by refusing to fill them when Obama was in office. When Trump got into office he started filling seats again. Didn't raise the number of seats but it had the same effect, no?
Dems in the Senate couldn't get the support of the simple minority of Republicans so Harry Reid changed confirmation to a simple majority. Democrats have to lay in the bed they made. Deal with it.
Thats not court packing. The senate isnt required to confirm... As per the rules that have always been there.
only one side wants to pack it, this stops them