[colliric]

You mean American voters are shifting right to the Trump/McConnell Republican Party. Really??? God Almighty!

Are you seeing the beating liberal woke and extremely Democratic Party dominated Hollywood is taking today in the press and on Twitter?

Holy shit they are getting creamed for fucking up the Oscars with the woke agenda. Lowest ratings ever, less than 10mil people tuned in.

[B0ycey]

Not happening.
"Pelosi dismisses progressive ‘court packing’ legislation."
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/1 ... ill-481895

I suspect there is no need to "pack" the SCOTUS given they proved they were impartial during the 'Trump' affair and by doing so would set a presidence which would have negative future repercussions. I guess things might change in the future if the SCOTUS ever abuse their powers.

[Rancid]

What they really should be working on is just setting the limit to what it is now.

[Suchard]

Are you seeing the beating liberal woke and extremely Democratic Party dominated Hollywood is taking today in the press and on Twitter?

Holy shit they are getting creamed for fucking up the Oscars with the woke agenda. Lowest ratings ever, less than 10mil people tuned in.

Twitter??? Are you serious? Fox News??? Give us a break.

[Suchard]

I suspect there is no need to "pack" the SCOTUS given they proved they were impartial during the 'Trump' affair and by doing so would set a presidence which would have negative future repercussions. I guess things might change in the future if the SCOTUS ever abuse their powers.

The current Supreme Court will be watched for political bias like never before. If Clarence Thomas gets to be always on the future majority decisions then the case will be made that it is as dysfunctional as that lazy lump who was put there to be a reactionary.

[B0ycey]

The current Supreme Court will be watched for political bias like never before. If Clarence Thomas gets to be always on the future majority decisions then the case will be made that it is as dysfunctional as that lazy lump who was put there to be a reactionary.

Well there is always going to be bias due to political affiliation. The question is will it effect the constitution? They were pretty much impartial over Trumps legal challenges and as such perhaps saved their court actually. So I don't see any need to change the numbers and neither does Pelosi. And I don't see that changing unless the SCOTUS interfere in another divisive issue beyond their responsibilities or against the POTUS as a political motivated move.

[Julian658]

Well there is always going to be bias due to political affiliation. The question is will it effect the constitution? They were pretty much impartial over Trumps legal challenges and as such perhaps saved their court actually. So I don't see any need to change the numbers and neither does Pelosi. And I don't see that changing unless the SCOTUS interfere in another divisive issue beyond their responsibilities or against the POTUS as a political motivated move.

Most judges appointed by Republicans tend to vote according to the constitution. Most appointed by the Democrats are much more biased to the left. IN other words a right wing judge is one that follows the constitution. The latter has led to favorable decisions for the left.

[Cartertonian]

Maybe this is worth a thread of its own...but for starters can anyone explain to a Brit why there is anything reasonable, democratic or indeed ethical about having a court (at whatever level) that is comprised of people with political affiliations?

Surely the point of any court is to be impartial? As soon as political allegiances are added to the mix, all impartiality is gone.

[B0ycey]

Most judges appointed by Republicans tend to vote according to the constitution. Most appointed by the Democrats are much more biased to the left. IN other words a right wing judge is one that follows the constitution. The latter has led to favorable decisions for the left.

Who cares. It is 6-3 for the Republicans and I see the Democrats being more constitutional as the Republicans right now considering half of the Republican Party were happy to abandon the election result last November. The SCOTUS didn't get involved and turned down Trumps bullshit requests - in other words remained constitutional. So as long as they don't stick their noses in Roe vs Wade I don't see why we need to change their numbers actually and neither does Pelosi.

[Rancid]

Who cares. It is 6-3 for the Republicans and I see the Democrats being more constitutional as the Republicans right now considering half of the Republican Party were happy to abandon the election result last November. The SCOTUS didn't get involved and turned down Trumps bullshit requests - in other words remained constitutional. So as long as they don't stick their noses in Roe vs Wade I don't see why we need to change their numbers actually and neither does Pelosi.

Voting for republicans because you think their appointed judges will end abortion is the dumbest shit on the planet. OT throw away everything else for just that is fucking dumb. In fact, it doesn't make sense.


This is a great video from a Christian youtube channel, on why it's basically stupid to vote based on abortion.

[B0ycey]

Maybe this is worth a thread of its own...but for starters can anyone explain to a Brit why there is anything reasonable, democratic or indeed ethical about having a court (at whatever level) that is comprised of people with political affiliations?

Surely the point of any court is to be impartial? As soon as political allegiances are added to the mix, all impartiality is gone.

I believe they swear to be impartial. But I guess you can explain this best by explaining why the speaker of the house is initially party aligned in the House of Commons.

[wat0n]

Maybe this is worth a thread of its own...but for starters can anyone explain to a Brit why there is anything reasonable, democratic or indeed ethical about having a court (at whatever level) that is comprised of people with political affiliations?

Surely the point of any court is to be impartial? As soon as political allegiances are added to the mix, all impartiality is gone.

It's more like an unavoidable fact of life than anything else, particularly if the other branches of government participate in the process. Normally, the pool of candidates will be limited to jurists of high prestige, but the selection itself will include members from the other branches of government.

[Julian658]

Who cares. It is 6-3 for the Republicans and I see the Democrats being more constitutional as the Republicans right now considering half of the Republican Party were happy to abandon the election result last November. The SCOTUS didn't get involved and turned down Trumps bullshit requests - in other words remained constitutional. So as long as they don't stick their noses in Roe vs Wade I don't see why we need to change their numbers actually and neither does Pelosi.

If you look at history: Any time extremists get elected to power they immediately want to change the constitution to have more power.

These two changed the constitution so they could stay in power.

[B0ycey]

If you look at history: Any time extremists get elected to power they immediately want to change the constitution to have more power.

What the FUCK has that got to do with the Democrats??? This all stemmed from Trump electing a justice just before an election when it was ruled that Obama was unable to for the same fucking reason. It has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. But as it happens given that the Republicans seem hell bent on bending and twisting things unfairly to their advantage, if the Democrats did likewise I would say that is just playing to the Republican rulebook. The fact they aren't interested in tit for tat BS games means they are less extreme than Trump FYI.

[Rancid]

What the FUCK has that got to do with the Democrats??? This all stemmed from Trump electing a justice just before an election when it was ruled that Obama was unable to for the same fucking reason. It has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. But as it happens given that the Republicans seem hell bent on bending and twisting things unfairly to their advantage, if the Democrats did likewise I would say that is just playing to the Republican rulebook. The fact they aren't interested in tit for tat BS games means they are less extreme than Trump FYI.

Julian just likes to hear himself talk. I doubt he actually reads anything anyone else posts here.

[late]

These two changed the constitution so they could stay in power.

There is nothing in the Constitution (please note it's a capital C) about the size of the court.

[Tainari88]

Maybe this is worth a thread of its own...but for starters can anyone explain to a Brit why there is anything reasonable, democratic or indeed ethical about having a court (at whatever level) that is comprised of people with political affiliations?

Surely the point of any court is to be impartial? As soon as political allegiances are added to the mix, all impartiality is gone.

When the whole judicial branch was set up? There were no Republican-Democratic parties.

It was based on common law from England. English common law. For example in Puerto Rican courts it was all based on Roman law. What the Spanish crown had as a legal branch. When the USA took over Puerto Rico they left Roman law in place for local and unimportant legal matters and then set up the USA system to override anything happening in the local courts in Puerto Rico that they disagreed with. It wound up making Puerto Rico's legal system a mess, and unjust.

The USA has a system in which judges are voted in by voters and have to have political party affiliations in many instances. That is the system. I find it pretty bad. That is the system though.

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pr ... sa/3397394

[Goranhammer]

Julian just likes to hear himself talk. I doubt he actually reads anything anyone else posts here.

Actually I think he makes a valid point. After all, look at boycey's response. He's basically saying "if Democrats do it, it's fine because Republicans would do it", even though they haven't. When Trump first took office, Republicans had the Executive and both the Legislative bodies on lock. They could've packed in then, to a level that Democrats would never get SCOTUS control again. Ever.

They didn't do it.

Wow, b0ycey suuuuuure was right about Republicans "bending things to their advantage". I mean, just wow.

Look at the hypocrites in this thread pretty much encouraging the Democrats to broker a complete monopoly on all three bodies so that "checks and balances" are pretty much gone and they have carte blanche to usher in things I don't even want to imagine.

The more they chirp, the more I worry about America...and, frankly, about the intelligence of the country as represented by some people here.

[B0ycey]

Actually I think he makes a valid point. After all, look at boycey's response. He's basically saying "if Democrats do it, it's fine because Republicans would do it", even though they haven't.

What the fuck you talking about? Trump elected a justice before an election when Obama wasn't able to. That is by definition "Doing something" for their advantage FYI by twisting and bending things unfairly to their advantage - my claim. Besides, I am not asking for the Democrats to pack the court and neither is Pelosi. As long as the SCOTUS remain impartial and stay out of specific contentious affairs I see things not changing given the ramifications by doing so. Also the talk of packing the court was during a time when there was serious worries on the impartiality of the SCOTUS and I suspect Trump was even expecting 'favors' to be returned when he was trying to coup d'etat the ratification of the election result. That is not the case today and I am not reading much on this within the news now. In other words, it seems a non story now.

[Julian658]

There is nothing in the Constitution (please note it's a capital C) about the size of the court.

It is not about the Constitution in this case, but the extreme left of the party wants to change the rules. Your nit picking changes nothing.