How many crazy SC decisions will it take before voters demand the court be packed to reverse them? - Politics | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
How many crazy USSC decisions will it take before American voters demand the court be packed to reverse them?

Today's example is allowing concealed carry of guns by almost everyone. Other examples are Roe v Wade, and requiring states to fund Muslim and Christian schools if they fund any private schools, etc.

This court has zero respect for 100 year old precedents. No law is safe.
Two of the 6 conservatives seats were stolen, IMHO.
IMO, it is not a question of IF this will be reversed, but WHEN it will be reversed.

Republicans have packed the court with radicals. A number of them just don't have what it takes to be a SC justice.

There were carry laws at the beginning of the country, it really puts the lie to their claim to be Originalists. Not that anyone that follows law doesn't already know that.
Rugoz wrote:Allowing states to ban abortion but not concealed carry.

The constitution says jack shit about both. Sheer stupidity.

The Constitution does say something about bearing arms.

Where can one read that ruling? Press reports are stating NY wanted gun owners to prove they needed to defend themselves to carry firearms, if the ruling is narrow then NY can still forbid the untrained and mentally ill from carrying.

The Constitution does indeed say nothing about abortion, but Congress could pass laws that limit the states ability to ban the procedure. I wonder if that's what will happen, soon.
Welp, Roe v. Wade has been overturned. I'm pretty right wing but more in the Japanese sense so I'm not strictly pro-life. Frankly I think this will ruin American conservatism in the long run and it's obvious why. The American left had to cheat to win in the short term but in the long term all they really have to do to win is give the right what they want I guess.
Rancid wrote:I don't want to see court packing. This would further erode the institutions that have already been eroded by the MAGA crowd.

Beau had had an earlier post just hours before this one, in which he called on the Dems the "unpack the court". He asserted that the Repuds had already packed the court because according to the norms from 1980 to 1990 the Repuds had stolen 2 appointments. These were when they refused to hold hearings and so a vote for about 10 months before the election, and then 4 years later held hearings and a vote after early voting had already started.

My reply to the above post was this =>

Yes, we need to unpack the court. Why is this a good idea? 1] It is the only way to keep those privacy rights that the Repuds will take very soon. 2] The Repub threat to repack the USSC as soon as they regain power is not much of a threat. This is because => a] if they openly make it a campaign issue it will cost them a million or 4 M votes for President and down ticket too, and b] IMHO if Repuds gain total control of the President, Senate and House then democracy is over anyway. Therefore, unpacking the court helps the Dems hold power to keep the Repuds/fascists out of power, which is necessary to maintain democracy.

So, IMHO the Dems should make unpacking the court a major campaign issue. This is because it should make it less likely that the Repud Party wins the election this year.
And it makes it more likely that they can dump the filibuster and actually unpack the court, to make it less likely that the Repuds will gain power anytime soon.

Maybe he did it just for observational purposes? I[…]

It;s just a shame we unable to save you and life […]

Primary Elections 2022

Are you democrats going to bestow another brain-de[…]

The Middle Class Won’t Escape the New IRS Audit W[…]