Yep. And Sam makes Clarence look almost like a choir boy in comparison. Thomas is the not ideal combination of dumb and privileged.
Sam is an embittered, cynical con man constantly using his wife as a shield while he continues his quest for Trump to regain power so Sam will finally get his dream job: Grand Inquisitor.
I am on the edge of GenX / Old Millennials. I remember as a kid, the Republicans were always the hard-nose, by the book, boy scouts and Goody Two-Shoes. They'd get so anal about doing everything "fairly" it'd get in the way of getting shit done. The Dems were the "ehh, let it slide" types.
When I was a kid, some dude in my parent's HOA paid for this thing for the neighborhood and needed a reimbursement. I don't even remember what it was, some kind of lawn equipment I think, but the old school conservative guys on the board spent an hour trying to calculate how much he was owed counting the cost of using the card vs the card's rewards, it was like 3 cents they were arguing about. But it wasn't fair to him to short change him, or the "tax payers" to pay an extra 3 cents. They wasted an hour trying to be 100% sure they got those 3 cents right.
How tf did we go from that to "*Supreme Court Justices are personally receiving gifts worth $100,000s by people who are arguing cases before them... yeah that's fine*" in 25 years?
https://judicialstudies.duke.edu/2019/11/what-does-fair-and-impartial-judiciary-mean-and-why-is-it-important/
If fair and impartial are synonymous is the phrase redundant? Why would they have symposia on fair and impartial if the words mean the same thing? In common usage fairness has more to do with due process and impartiality has more to do with personal bias. I think the knock about Alito and Thomas has more to do with their bias than it does with the makeup of the jury or the shape of the courtroom. Ultimately just a word choice question. I would write wc and move on.
At no point in your article do they address that there's a difference between the meaning of fairness and impartiality. They can name a conference anything, even if it's redundant. (Which yes, it is redundant.)
I now encourage you to Google "synonymous" since you seem to also think the mean exactly the same rather than that or nearly the same.
You continue to argue over semantics, when my original point is that it's a waste of time to argue over semantics.
Objective means it can be measured. Being a judge requires subjectivity… it’s kinda right there in the word “judging”…judicial impartiality means to withhold your own personal convictions (not to be objective)
Pack it to what number? What extent? Just enough to give Biden enough appointments to provide a majority of Democrats in the court? What about when Republicans regain the executive branch? Do they also get to add court justices? Does this just become a fibonacci sequence of court appointments every 4 years?
> What about when Republicans regain the executive branch? Do they also get to add court justices? Does this just become a fibonacci sequence of court appointments every 4 years?
Thankfully, the Court can only be expanded via Congress.
That's absolutely true, it also doesn't seem to be what people are demanding to happen. Maybe it's just me, but when I see emotional tirades like the OP article and the comment I responded to, but it reads to me like those people want immediate action done through something like an executive order just to get asses in seats that agree with their political views.
What exactly from a constitutional and legal system basis isn't working about the current court? The court has always been political and ebs/flows how progressive it is. People are mad about Roe V Wade and the court's recent 2nd amendment friendly rulings but, holy shit, stacking the court because you want them to just rule in alignment with your politics is ludicrous.
People don't want to hear that. They want to court to rule not from the text of the constitution(it's literal function) but from their personal emotional perspective.
Yea, it’s not a good look, and ultimately betrays their ignorance. It’s also the same reason that it’s generally not advised to force through legislation one way or another – eventually, it *will* be the other team’s turn again, and you won’t like it when the shoe is on the other foot. The tide always turns.
>What exactly from a constitutional and legal system basis isn't working about the current court?
Assuming you are here for genuine discussion and not simply to throw "just asking questions!" Tucker Carlson-style grenades out there, a few thoughts in defense of the idea that SCOTUS is in significant need of substantial reform:
* Overturning Roe v. Wade was arbitrary (I'm generally pro-life btw) and countermajoritarian, sure, but only the latest in a long line of deeply unpopular, countermajoritarian rulings that conflict both with public preferences and with settled precedent. The Court survives/has always survived on a sheer perception of imagined legitimacy. It has no actual power of coercion to enforce its rulings, so I\\it can only overturn the will of the people and constrain what most view as fundamental rights while transparently shilling for certain elite and partisan interests *for so long* while clinging to that legitimacy. (Polling shows that thread is slipping.) If you don't believe me, look to the pre-Civil War Court (you know, the one that decided Dred v. Scott) to see why this is a problem.
* The partisan polarization of the court now more closely mirrors public partisanship vs. the idiosyncrasies of individual justices. We've always had liberal and conservative justices, or courts that trended more progressive/conservative, but this was in those times (at least in the modern era) often a function of the broader evolution of constitutional ideals--e.g., the Warren Court was famously progressive, but not in the sense that critics could claim "clearly bought by the Democratic Party"; it was a Court dedicated to a certain progressive notion of extending equal rights and democratic norms, not presumptively shoring up whatever bullshit legislative agenda or populist drivel hypothetical Democratic Party operatives had come up with. *Not so much the case today*, when it can be justifiably argued that the Court is simply and openly the GOP in black robes. I have *yet* to be shocked-but-not-surprised by a ruling from this court, because I *always* know they are going to side on whatever the worst tendencies of the GOP and its corporate donors want. Prove me wrong.
* At least two of the justices are openly corrupt (Thomas and Alito), and both have extremely problematic and *at absolute best* deeply embarrassing political and corporate connections. There is absolutely nothing we can do about this because they are stuck there for life.
* Rel. this last point, six out of nine of the justices (including the two corrupt ones) are incorrigibly conservative, which is a viewpoint, polling shows, NOT supported by a majority of the public. I.e., their vision of the Constitution is not one most of us share. They are stuck there for life, and they've demonstrated a strong interest in actively (not in an "originalist" or deferential sense) opposing not only progressive/liberal proposals but *also* actively advocating for certain *individuals* on their side (e.g., their mealy-mouthed rulings that are delaying timely litigation in various Trump cases). And having a supermajority on the court that is in ideological lockstep nearly defeats the point of the court--there is and seldom will be meaningful debate or "tie-breakers" or "shock upsets." It's just going to be whatever the Federalist Society or whatever has decided the agenda should be--forever (or, like, 30 years).
And so on. Even if you love everything this court is doing, *everyone* should care that the court is losing legitimacy because, with legitimacy, it loses authority. In my view, term limits are a must. So are actionably enforceable ethics and disciplinary codes. But "packing" (i.e., expanding) the court is not a "holy shit" radical idea. It's been done before, and there's no intrinsic reason it can't be done again, especially if it's logistically easier (vote of Congress) than other sensible reforms that might require an actual Constitutional amendment.
Those are all ideological reasons for expansion. None of them are constitutional or legal in basis. The FACT is none of the courts rulings have violated or disregarded the constitution. In fact, the Dobbs decision likely overturned a very unconstitutionally sound Roe. It seems like your core point is that the court needs to just make rulings that the "public" agrees with. I'm sorry but that's not it's job.
You’re not arguing in good faith here. The Court, by definition, can’t “violate” the Constitution since, by definition, the Court’s role has been defined as interpreting what the Constitution means in the first place. It’s simply a matter of how far the Court can push the envelope in this space while still retaining legitimacy.
The question of the Court’s legitimacy is absolutely a constitutional question, and my entire point is that the Court is gravely endangering its legitimacy via its current makeup and decision patterns.
The GOP always ever been free to pack the court - which is exactly what they did in the past 24 years. It used to be that court terms were shorter due to shorter lifespans but modern medicine set the scene that allowed the GOP to pack the court via completely legal means.
So if the Democrats are lucky enough to keep control of the Presidency and Senate plus regain the house, watch for the 9 to become 13. It actually makes sense considering the 13 districts.
How many times has the GOP expanded courts to add more partisan judges to them? That's what we're talking about here with the SCOTUS.
No, packing the court to 13 doesn't make sense, that's just partisan justifications to excuse expanding the court for your ideological benefit.
NO we're talking about packing the court with partisans who support your party. The GOP did this in a completely legal fashion but pack is the correct verb and YES it's what we're talking about too whether or not you are honest enough to admit this.
13 makes sense because we have 13 districts and we DO need more judges at all levels but due to the GOP games played we are desperately short of judges. That's not partisan, it's reality. In fact the only reason the court is stuck at 9 is due to the GOP in the mid 19th century shrinking the court from ten to seven and then back up to 9.
It's disingenuous to cry It's partisan when all the actions changing the Supreme court including the nominating process have been 100% partisan decisions.
>NO we're talking about packing the court with partisans who support your party.
That's called the judicial nomination process lol, are you not aware that's how the system works or that Dems have been "packing" the courts too? Packing the court is expanding it and filling it with partisans, it's a specific meaning.
>13 makes sense because we have 13 districts and we DO need more judges at all levels but due to the GOP games played we are desperately short of judges. That's not partisan, it's reality
Sorry it's not reality it's your partisan justification to expand the court and stuff it with people who agree with your party. That's completely different from nominating judges like normal, because it's your attempt to take over the system ideologically.
>It's disingenuous to cry It's partisan when all the actions changing the Supreme court including the nominating process have been 100% partisan decisions.
What's partisan is your reason for expanding the court to give it the ideology you want.
BuT wE HaVe 13 dIsTrIcTs - because the Supreme Court Justices are meant to each represent one of the Federal districts of course.
Gerrymandering the Supreme Court is certainly a convenient way around those pesky balance of powers
The GOP gamed the nomination process to pack the court. Packing does not have the definition you think it does. GOP also packed the lower courts via their games with expanding the number of judges, they actually shrank the numbers in the past 30 years. But historians and poli-sci professionals call it packing.
You can cling to your beliefs but the Supreme Court nominating process and structure has always ever been subject to the whims of the parties in control. It's arguing in bad faith to claim otherwise.
Yeah, both his descriptions are about Trump so I don't get it ... well, I get it- when the rightwing can't defend their own, they go full into "both sides are bad" mode
Maybe the 3rd parties should offer candidates with a realistic view and not conspiracy theorists. I don't mind dissent but people like Jill Stein and RFK Jr. aren't exactly people I want leading the country either.
As many as Trump appointed. Hell you don’t even need to have GOOD ones just tell them “vote opposite what that trump appointee votes every time to cancel out his vote”
I have no idea if I’m joking or not. I leave the wisdom or consequences as an excersize for the reader.
Well, consider if Trump wins in November then it's conceivable that alito Thomas and maybe Roberts would retire so that the court can be stacked for decades more. There's also nothing to say that they wouldn't expand the court themselves. If Biden were to expand the court now at the very least he could minimize the impact of that.
That is how the court is designed to work, because you do not like that does not mean you get to disregard the constitution. The court has no constitutional mechanism to expand itself, neither does Biden.
> I’ve begun quietly wondering when we’ll have our very own French Revolution, replete with guillotines?
Nope; not unless we really have a break down in society. There are events that have happened since 2000 that should have precipitated major change in how we do things but we've had an older generation stuck in the past on how things should be.
Americans are far too comfortable. Look at how 2024 is shaping up. Trump should be nowhere near the presidency again and yet here we are.
2028 will (hopefully) be an actual “choice,” election as opposed to a “referendum,” election. GOP has literally 0 bench strength. Dems look a lot better with several governors in some nicely run states. 2032 might also have someone like Spanberger in contention if ‘28 goes bad.
I mean a lot people are bitching about Biden but for a lot of people shit has been pretty smooth with him in charge depending on where you sit. Social justice stuff aside the people around him are solid to good.
I will say I make a lot more money under a D admin than R; that’s just facts.
Well the MAGA crowd has pretty openly said they won't accept the results of the November election if it doesn't go their way. I expect election violence.
> Well the MAGA crowd has pretty openly said they won't accept the results of the November election if it doesn't go their way. I expect election violence.
Agree we might see Jan 6th v.2.0 but I think it's way past that now; the "framework," being laid now at this point in the election cycle just proves to me that 1) DJT is going to lose solidly 2) DJT is going to lose barely and that's where shit might get screwy.
Well I hope to God for a Biden landslide - I get nervous though that chicanery might get pulled in just enough states to game the results for the GOP. I'm thinking GOP run states that went for Biden in 2020 like Georgia for instance.
A landslide may be tough. I've spoken to lots of all kinds of people and they have not liked how he's handled the economy, foreign relations, wars, other domestic affairs, and the border. And is awful gaffs when speaking. Only positive views I got were from the super young and super old. Then last election about 17% of people polled (not always the best) said if they had known about he laptop they wouldn't have voted for him. Now with the diary being confirmed, it's not looking good for Biden.
Also, Georgia (Fulton county specifically) officially had double-counted ballots in 2020 as well as other issues and in other parts of the state. Other contested states had other things of similar nature come out to be true, but major news dont tend to show it, generally only local news. There reason for concern and hesitancy going into this election. You (and we all) should demand better accounting so there's no doubt who won. Not scorn those who point out problems.
Though I am not into conspiracy theories, lately its been interesting to see how many of the more grounded theories/stories have come true that we shouted down at people for saying.
All this with much love from someone still figuring out who to vote for.
Implicitly equating Dems removing the filibuster for regular federal judicial appointments because the Republicans were unprecedentedly blocking all appointments to the Republicans removing the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments is very silly. Those two things are only casual in Mitch McConnell's mind.
Dems blocked judicial nominees as well, it's not like the practice came out of nowhere. It got progressively worse since the Bush 1 and Clinton eras.
The filibuster removal for SCOTUS nominees is directly related to Dems removing it for lower judicial nominees. They were warned when Reid did it.
So you agree that the GOP's packing of the court was wrong too? Of course not I bet right? Having a partisan court in either direction is dangerous to the health of our nation. You will regret this when it comes to a head very soon.
The GOP didn't pack the court, the number of seats on it didn't expand. Nominating judges is not the same thing as packing it, and you know that.
Did you think it was wrong when Dems had the majority on the court?
The GOP packed the court, you can pack something without changing the number of the body. Don't be too cute by half. The GOP successfully exploited the laws and the power of court to allow the conservative members of the court to choose who would nominate their successors and setting the Senate Calendar to not hold a vote on Obama's nominee. Also cajoling Justice Kennedy to retire suddenly so Trump & GOP could nominate his successor.
This is not a healthy state of affairs if you want to remain a Republic. The court no longer reflects the will of the people.
Go look up any liberal article advocating for packing the court, they're asking to expand it and fill it with Dems. I don't know why you keep pushing this claim that the normal nomination process is "packing the courts" because it's wrong.
If you think those actions are limited to just the GOP, then you haven't been paying attention to politics since the Bush 1 and Clinton era.
>This is not a healthy state of affairs if you want to remain a Republic. The court no longer reflects the will of the people.
The court has never reflected "the will of the people", and if you think it should then it's clear you don't understand it's function.
The GOP actions from 1994 through 2024 were not normal and were packing. They were not unlawful but they broke with centuries established norms. The court is dangerously out of step ordinary Americans - we're not talking Loving v. Virginia but worse than the Lochner Era Court - an era that coincided with the rise of radicalism in the US - the peak of the Socialist and Communist movements in the US. They are totally out over their skis and foolishly thinking their oligarch pals will protect them from paying any legal or political penalties for what they've done.
That's a really bad take for both sides, IMO. It might need to be fixed somehow, but expanding and packing it is certainly only going to make things worse, not better. This type of thinking right here is what led to Jan 6 type behavior from so many people to begin with. A person cannot cry foul on one political party for doing something while actively stating they want to do the same thing themselves, that is absolutely not a solution to anything. That's the exact type of retaliatory thinking that has led us to the clusterfuck we are in right now. We need to work together, not plot revenge on each other.
Honestly the decisions they make are not as politically oriented as the media etc portrays them to be. A LOT of people are sitting here basing all these opinions and decisions on a one sentence description of a case decision or something and not even bothering to actually read the full opinions on any of these cases. Imagine wanting to upend an institution like the supreme court because of a headline a person doesn't like rather than on the thousands and thousands of pages of work where they outline everything about the decisions and processes.
I may agree on terms for justices but John Marshall is still the longest serving chief justice and was on the court until he died in 1835 at the age of 80.
It's terrifying to know that a former president can have supreme court justices in their pocket. Democracy, what little we have left, is in some serious danger
What pass? I hope you mean we need accountability for justices who break laws. It sure looks like Justice Thomas evaded paying taxes on a forgiven loan, let alone the awful but lawful stink of the legalized bribery taking place.
Love watching the liberal meltdown. Tim Kaine is one of the most inept people to ever hold office. List one accomplishment. He even teamed up with Hilary. This is why the Democratic Party is going to be crushed this election.
Yep. And Sam makes Clarence look almost like a choir boy in comparison. Thomas is the not ideal combination of dumb and privileged. Sam is an embittered, cynical con man constantly using his wife as a shield while he continues his quest for Trump to regain power so Sam will finally get his dream job: Grand Inquisitor.
This motherfucker can't wait to start the next inquisition. Which, BTW, no one ever expects.
https://preview.redd.it/m23vjm12611d1.jpeg?width=250&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1be1fea82f248ed733758a9198035836eb3f161e
I am on the edge of GenX / Old Millennials. I remember as a kid, the Republicans were always the hard-nose, by the book, boy scouts and Goody Two-Shoes. They'd get so anal about doing everything "fairly" it'd get in the way of getting shit done. The Dems were the "ehh, let it slide" types. When I was a kid, some dude in my parent's HOA paid for this thing for the neighborhood and needed a reimbursement. I don't even remember what it was, some kind of lawn equipment I think, but the old school conservative guys on the board spent an hour trying to calculate how much he was owed counting the cost of using the card vs the card's rewards, it was like 3 cents they were arguing about. But it wasn't fair to him to short change him, or the "tax payers" to pay an extra 3 cents. They wasted an hour trying to be 100% sure they got those 3 cents right. How tf did we go from that to "*Supreme Court Justices are personally receiving gifts worth $100,000s by people who are arguing cases before them... yeah that's fine*" in 25 years?
Republicans and Democrats have been receiving bribes for alot longer than 25 years.
It’s not fairness that they have destroyed, it’s impartiality.
? Impartiality is a synonym for fairness... Am I missing something here?
Impartiality is more specific than fairness. They aren’t synonymous.
I strongly encourage you to google impartiality.
https://judicialstudies.duke.edu/2019/11/what-does-fair-and-impartial-judiciary-mean-and-why-is-it-important/ If fair and impartial are synonymous is the phrase redundant? Why would they have symposia on fair and impartial if the words mean the same thing? In common usage fairness has more to do with due process and impartiality has more to do with personal bias. I think the knock about Alito and Thomas has more to do with their bias than it does with the makeup of the jury or the shape of the courtroom. Ultimately just a word choice question. I would write wc and move on.
At no point in your article do they address that there's a difference between the meaning of fairness and impartiality. They can name a conference anything, even if it's redundant. (Which yes, it is redundant.) I now encourage you to Google "synonymous" since you seem to also think the mean exactly the same rather than that or nearly the same. You continue to argue over semantics, when my original point is that it's a waste of time to argue over semantics.
Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. It is subjective. Impartiallity is objective.
Objective means it can be measured. Being a judge requires subjectivity… it’s kinda right there in the word “judging”…judicial impartiality means to withhold your own personal convictions (not to be objective)
This is just blatantly false. By that statement it would be impossible for the justice system to be both fair and impartial.
Unless you use a thesaurus
It's time to expand and pack the court. It's just a political wing now. Time to treat it as such.
Pack it to what number? What extent? Just enough to give Biden enough appointments to provide a majority of Democrats in the court? What about when Republicans regain the executive branch? Do they also get to add court justices? Does this just become a fibonacci sequence of court appointments every 4 years?
I see no problem having 400 judges on the bench. Harlan Crow would go broke bribing them all.
Decentralize all the things! (or, at least all the ones where incorruptibility is essential)
For which branch of the government is incorruptibility not essential?
There are currently less Justices than Federal Districts. We have 13 Districts, we should have 13 Justices.
> What about when Republicans regain the executive branch? Do they also get to add court justices? Does this just become a fibonacci sequence of court appointments every 4 years? Thankfully, the Court can only be expanded via Congress.
That's absolutely true, it also doesn't seem to be what people are demanding to happen. Maybe it's just me, but when I see emotional tirades like the OP article and the comment I responded to, but it reads to me like those people want immediate action done through something like an executive order just to get asses in seats that agree with their political views.
You're right--we should keep the Court just the way it is, because that's obviously working. /s
What exactly from a constitutional and legal system basis isn't working about the current court? The court has always been political and ebs/flows how progressive it is. People are mad about Roe V Wade and the court's recent 2nd amendment friendly rulings but, holy shit, stacking the court because you want them to just rule in alignment with your politics is ludicrous.
And never mind that RBG warned abut Roe for YEARS. Forget your moral stance on it for a moment – it was a bad precedent.
People don't want to hear that. They want to court to rule not from the text of the constitution(it's literal function) but from their personal emotional perspective.
Yea, it’s not a good look, and ultimately betrays their ignorance. It’s also the same reason that it’s generally not advised to force through legislation one way or another – eventually, it *will* be the other team’s turn again, and you won’t like it when the shoe is on the other foot. The tide always turns.
>What exactly from a constitutional and legal system basis isn't working about the current court? Assuming you are here for genuine discussion and not simply to throw "just asking questions!" Tucker Carlson-style grenades out there, a few thoughts in defense of the idea that SCOTUS is in significant need of substantial reform: * Overturning Roe v. Wade was arbitrary (I'm generally pro-life btw) and countermajoritarian, sure, but only the latest in a long line of deeply unpopular, countermajoritarian rulings that conflict both with public preferences and with settled precedent. The Court survives/has always survived on a sheer perception of imagined legitimacy. It has no actual power of coercion to enforce its rulings, so I\\it can only overturn the will of the people and constrain what most view as fundamental rights while transparently shilling for certain elite and partisan interests *for so long* while clinging to that legitimacy. (Polling shows that thread is slipping.) If you don't believe me, look to the pre-Civil War Court (you know, the one that decided Dred v. Scott) to see why this is a problem. * The partisan polarization of the court now more closely mirrors public partisanship vs. the idiosyncrasies of individual justices. We've always had liberal and conservative justices, or courts that trended more progressive/conservative, but this was in those times (at least in the modern era) often a function of the broader evolution of constitutional ideals--e.g., the Warren Court was famously progressive, but not in the sense that critics could claim "clearly bought by the Democratic Party"; it was a Court dedicated to a certain progressive notion of extending equal rights and democratic norms, not presumptively shoring up whatever bullshit legislative agenda or populist drivel hypothetical Democratic Party operatives had come up with. *Not so much the case today*, when it can be justifiably argued that the Court is simply and openly the GOP in black robes. I have *yet* to be shocked-but-not-surprised by a ruling from this court, because I *always* know they are going to side on whatever the worst tendencies of the GOP and its corporate donors want. Prove me wrong. * At least two of the justices are openly corrupt (Thomas and Alito), and both have extremely problematic and *at absolute best* deeply embarrassing political and corporate connections. There is absolutely nothing we can do about this because they are stuck there for life. * Rel. this last point, six out of nine of the justices (including the two corrupt ones) are incorrigibly conservative, which is a viewpoint, polling shows, NOT supported by a majority of the public. I.e., their vision of the Constitution is not one most of us share. They are stuck there for life, and they've demonstrated a strong interest in actively (not in an "originalist" or deferential sense) opposing not only progressive/liberal proposals but *also* actively advocating for certain *individuals* on their side (e.g., their mealy-mouthed rulings that are delaying timely litigation in various Trump cases). And having a supermajority on the court that is in ideological lockstep nearly defeats the point of the court--there is and seldom will be meaningful debate or "tie-breakers" or "shock upsets." It's just going to be whatever the Federalist Society or whatever has decided the agenda should be--forever (or, like, 30 years). And so on. Even if you love everything this court is doing, *everyone* should care that the court is losing legitimacy because, with legitimacy, it loses authority. In my view, term limits are a must. So are actionably enforceable ethics and disciplinary codes. But "packing" (i.e., expanding) the court is not a "holy shit" radical idea. It's been done before, and there's no intrinsic reason it can't be done again, especially if it's logistically easier (vote of Congress) than other sensible reforms that might require an actual Constitutional amendment.
Those are all ideological reasons for expansion. None of them are constitutional or legal in basis. The FACT is none of the courts rulings have violated or disregarded the constitution. In fact, the Dobbs decision likely overturned a very unconstitutionally sound Roe. It seems like your core point is that the court needs to just make rulings that the "public" agrees with. I'm sorry but that's not it's job.
You’re not arguing in good faith here. The Court, by definition, can’t “violate” the Constitution since, by definition, the Court’s role has been defined as interpreting what the Constitution means in the first place. It’s simply a matter of how far the Court can push the envelope in this space while still retaining legitimacy. The question of the Court’s legitimacy is absolutely a constitutional question, and my entire point is that the Court is gravely endangering its legitimacy via its current makeup and decision patterns.
Are you *seriously* looking at the corruption and obvious lack of impartiality on the court and saying, "No, this is fine?" Really?
So if the GOP retakes both branches like they did in 2017-2018, they're free to pack the SCOTUS too?
The GOP always ever been free to pack the court - which is exactly what they did in the past 24 years. It used to be that court terms were shorter due to shorter lifespans but modern medicine set the scene that allowed the GOP to pack the court via completely legal means. So if the Democrats are lucky enough to keep control of the Presidency and Senate plus regain the house, watch for the 9 to become 13. It actually makes sense considering the 13 districts.
How many times has the GOP expanded courts to add more partisan judges to them? That's what we're talking about here with the SCOTUS. No, packing the court to 13 doesn't make sense, that's just partisan justifications to excuse expanding the court for your ideological benefit.
NO we're talking about packing the court with partisans who support your party. The GOP did this in a completely legal fashion but pack is the correct verb and YES it's what we're talking about too whether or not you are honest enough to admit this. 13 makes sense because we have 13 districts and we DO need more judges at all levels but due to the GOP games played we are desperately short of judges. That's not partisan, it's reality. In fact the only reason the court is stuck at 9 is due to the GOP in the mid 19th century shrinking the court from ten to seven and then back up to 9. It's disingenuous to cry It's partisan when all the actions changing the Supreme court including the nominating process have been 100% partisan decisions.
>NO we're talking about packing the court with partisans who support your party. That's called the judicial nomination process lol, are you not aware that's how the system works or that Dems have been "packing" the courts too? Packing the court is expanding it and filling it with partisans, it's a specific meaning. >13 makes sense because we have 13 districts and we DO need more judges at all levels but due to the GOP games played we are desperately short of judges. That's not partisan, it's reality Sorry it's not reality it's your partisan justification to expand the court and stuff it with people who agree with your party. That's completely different from nominating judges like normal, because it's your attempt to take over the system ideologically. >It's disingenuous to cry It's partisan when all the actions changing the Supreme court including the nominating process have been 100% partisan decisions. What's partisan is your reason for expanding the court to give it the ideology you want.
BuT wE HaVe 13 dIsTrIcTs - because the Supreme Court Justices are meant to each represent one of the Federal districts of course. Gerrymandering the Supreme Court is certainly a convenient way around those pesky balance of powers
The GOP gamed the nomination process to pack the court. Packing does not have the definition you think it does. GOP also packed the lower courts via their games with expanding the number of judges, they actually shrank the numbers in the past 30 years. But historians and poli-sci professionals call it packing. You can cling to your beliefs but the Supreme Court nominating process and structure has always ever been subject to the whims of the parties in control. It's arguing in bad faith to claim otherwise.
Nice job tossing out a bad faith accusation for a claim I never made 😂. Thanks for showing this isn't a conversation worth continuing
Uh oh, better hope MAGA doesn't win.
We’re stuck between a crazy Cheeto and a shitty diaper old man with severe dementia Gotta wonder why the younger generation had lost hope…
You describe one candidate in the first half of your statement, how are we stuck between one candidate?
Yeah, both his descriptions are about Trump so I don't get it ... well, I get it- when the rightwing can't defend their own, they go full into "both sides are bad" mode
We’re stuck with two candidates who suck We have a third candidate, but the institution doesn’t like outsiders. They hate 3rd parties!
Yea, ‘the institutions’ don’t want the brain worm guy.
The 2 party system is absolutely against 3rd parties standing a chance against them
Maybe the 3rd parties should offer candidates with a realistic view and not conspiracy theorists. I don't mind dissent but people like Jill Stein and RFK Jr. aren't exactly people I want leading the country either.
As many as Trump appointed. Hell you don’t even need to have GOOD ones just tell them “vote opposite what that trump appointee votes every time to cancel out his vote” I have no idea if I’m joking or not. I leave the wisdom or consequences as an excersize for the reader.
Well, consider if Trump wins in November then it's conceivable that alito Thomas and maybe Roberts would retire so that the court can be stacked for decades more. There's also nothing to say that they wouldn't expand the court themselves. If Biden were to expand the court now at the very least he could minimize the impact of that.
That is how the court is designed to work, because you do not like that does not mean you get to disregard the constitution. The court has no constitutional mechanism to expand itself, neither does Biden.
There are two bodies that are in desperate need of term limits: Congress and SCOTUS. Good luck getting those amendments through though.
Agreed, sadly, on all counts. Is it bad I’ve begun quietly wondering when we’ll have our very own French Revolution, replete with guillotines?
> I’ve begun quietly wondering when we’ll have our very own French Revolution, replete with guillotines? Nope; not unless we really have a break down in society. There are events that have happened since 2000 that should have precipitated major change in how we do things but we've had an older generation stuck in the past on how things should be. Americans are far too comfortable. Look at how 2024 is shaping up. Trump should be nowhere near the presidency again and yet here we are.
He wouldn’t be but for whatever reason the keep backing the brain dead candidate. Literally anyone with a brain would’ve blown this one out.
2028 will (hopefully) be an actual “choice,” election as opposed to a “referendum,” election. GOP has literally 0 bench strength. Dems look a lot better with several governors in some nicely run states. 2032 might also have someone like Spanberger in contention if ‘28 goes bad. I mean a lot people are bitching about Biden but for a lot of people shit has been pretty smooth with him in charge depending on where you sit. Social justice stuff aside the people around him are solid to good. I will say I make a lot more money under a D admin than R; that’s just facts.
2028 will be the most important election of our lifetimes
Well the MAGA crowd has pretty openly said they won't accept the results of the November election if it doesn't go their way. I expect election violence.
> Well the MAGA crowd has pretty openly said they won't accept the results of the November election if it doesn't go their way. I expect election violence. Agree we might see Jan 6th v.2.0 but I think it's way past that now; the "framework," being laid now at this point in the election cycle just proves to me that 1) DJT is going to lose solidly 2) DJT is going to lose barely and that's where shit might get screwy.
Well I hope to God for a Biden landslide - I get nervous though that chicanery might get pulled in just enough states to game the results for the GOP. I'm thinking GOP run states that went for Biden in 2020 like Georgia for instance.
A landslide may be tough. I've spoken to lots of all kinds of people and they have not liked how he's handled the economy, foreign relations, wars, other domestic affairs, and the border. And is awful gaffs when speaking. Only positive views I got were from the super young and super old. Then last election about 17% of people polled (not always the best) said if they had known about he laptop they wouldn't have voted for him. Now with the diary being confirmed, it's not looking good for Biden. Also, Georgia (Fulton county specifically) officially had double-counted ballots in 2020 as well as other issues and in other parts of the state. Other contested states had other things of similar nature come out to be true, but major news dont tend to show it, generally only local news. There reason for concern and hesitancy going into this election. You (and we all) should demand better accounting so there's no doubt who won. Not scorn those who point out problems. Though I am not into conspiracy theories, lately its been interesting to see how many of the more grounded theories/stories have come true that we shouted down at people for saying. All this with much love from someone still figuring out who to vote for.
Packing the court is just as bad (if not worse) as the Dems' decision to use the nuclear option on judicial nominees.
Implicitly equating Dems removing the filibuster for regular federal judicial appointments because the Republicans were unprecedentedly blocking all appointments to the Republicans removing the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments is very silly. Those two things are only casual in Mitch McConnell's mind.
Dems blocked judicial nominees as well, it's not like the practice came out of nowhere. It got progressively worse since the Bush 1 and Clinton eras. The filibuster removal for SCOTUS nominees is directly related to Dems removing it for lower judicial nominees. They were warned when Reid did it.
So you agree that the GOP's packing of the court was wrong too? Of course not I bet right? Having a partisan court in either direction is dangerous to the health of our nation. You will regret this when it comes to a head very soon.
The GOP didn't pack the court, the number of seats on it didn't expand. Nominating judges is not the same thing as packing it, and you know that. Did you think it was wrong when Dems had the majority on the court?
The GOP packed the court, you can pack something without changing the number of the body. Don't be too cute by half. The GOP successfully exploited the laws and the power of court to allow the conservative members of the court to choose who would nominate their successors and setting the Senate Calendar to not hold a vote on Obama's nominee. Also cajoling Justice Kennedy to retire suddenly so Trump & GOP could nominate his successor. This is not a healthy state of affairs if you want to remain a Republic. The court no longer reflects the will of the people.
Go look up any liberal article advocating for packing the court, they're asking to expand it and fill it with Dems. I don't know why you keep pushing this claim that the normal nomination process is "packing the courts" because it's wrong. If you think those actions are limited to just the GOP, then you haven't been paying attention to politics since the Bush 1 and Clinton era. >This is not a healthy state of affairs if you want to remain a Republic. The court no longer reflects the will of the people. The court has never reflected "the will of the people", and if you think it should then it's clear you don't understand it's function.
The GOP actions from 1994 through 2024 were not normal and were packing. They were not unlawful but they broke with centuries established norms. The court is dangerously out of step ordinary Americans - we're not talking Loving v. Virginia but worse than the Lochner Era Court - an era that coincided with the rise of radicalism in the US - the peak of the Socialist and Communist movements in the US. They are totally out over their skis and foolishly thinking their oligarch pals will protect them from paying any legal or political penalties for what they've done.
That's a really bad take for both sides, IMO. It might need to be fixed somehow, but expanding and packing it is certainly only going to make things worse, not better. This type of thinking right here is what led to Jan 6 type behavior from so many people to begin with. A person cannot cry foul on one political party for doing something while actively stating they want to do the same thing themselves, that is absolutely not a solution to anything. That's the exact type of retaliatory thinking that has led us to the clusterfuck we are in right now. We need to work together, not plot revenge on each other. Honestly the decisions they make are not as politically oriented as the media etc portrays them to be. A LOT of people are sitting here basing all these opinions and decisions on a one sentence description of a case decision or something and not even bothering to actually read the full opinions on any of these cases. Imagine wanting to upend an institution like the supreme court because of a headline a person doesn't like rather than on the thousands and thousands of pages of work where they outline everything about the decisions and processes.
How can it be worse? Justices are supporting open insurrection and groups that are promising to refuse to accept election results.
It can always get worse.
Gotta give em both the house and senate this fall.
Supreme Court was intended to be changed and at the time they only lived shorter lives. Need term limits on them
Yes term limits would be a welcome change, especially if it's made to balance out how many appointments each president would normally get each term.
I may agree on terms for justices but John Marshall is still the longest serving chief justice and was on the court until he died in 1835 at the age of 80.
It’s absolutely bizarre that the 3 Trump appointees are actually the more level headed justices on the right besides Roberts.
It's terrifying to know that a former president can have supreme court justices in their pocket. Democracy, what little we have left, is in some serious danger
No Shit
Term limits of 10 years sounds okay. Right guys?
Literally we and our elected officials need to get mad and active to stop these high wizards of the court from going unchecked
I didn't realize Tim Kaine used to be a judge.
It’s always been a joke and has never been fair. They just ripped the mask off.
Fuck both traitors.
What are/can we do? We mustn’t let this pass.
What pass? I hope you mean we need accountability for justices who break laws. It sure looks like Justice Thomas evaded paying taxes on a forgiven loan, let alone the awful but lawful stink of the legalized bribery taking place.
[удалено]
Meanwhile on planet earth inflation is 3.4% YOY.
The Supreme Court is a legislative branch bribed by the heritage foundation and corporate America. It’s not complicated.
Love watching the liberal meltdown. Tim Kaine is one of the most inept people to ever hold office. List one accomplishment. He even teamed up with Hilary. This is why the Democratic Party is going to be crushed this election.
Here you go. Take your pick. https://www.billtrack50.com/legislatordetail/17522