Democrats to introduce bill to pack the Supreme Court - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15167237
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... s-n1264132

I too would prefer a Democrat-majority court, but this isn't the way to do it, and sets a very dangerous precedent. This verges on tyranny and is against what the Founding Fathers intended. This is unwise and will blow up in the face of the Dems. If this would pass it could be the worst US policy decision since the Iraq War.

Thankfully Biden doesn't seem on board nor is Nancy Pelosi, at least they're still sane. The chances are nil for this passing, and Biden could likely have a veto.
#15167263
Unthinking Majority wrote:https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/democrats-introduce-bill-expand-supreme-court-9-13-justices-n1264132

I too would prefer a Democrat-majority court, but this isn't the way to do it, and sets a very dangerous precedent. This verges on tyranny and is against what the Founding Fathers intended. This is unwise and will blow up in the face of the Dems. If this would pass it could be the worst US policy decision since the Iraq War.

Thankfully Biden doesn't seem on board nor is Nancy Pelosi, at least they're still sane. The chances are nil for this passing, and Biden could likely have a veto.

It is nonsense to say that it is tyranny for Democratic majorities to pack the court with progressive jurists while ignoring how the Republicans under Mitch McConnell in the Senate prevented President Obama from having his choice voted on for a spurious reason that he later contradicted with a Trump nominee. Then citing the so-called Founding Fathers as a support. Please, give us a break. The Democrats should demonstrate that they have learned the lesson of packing the court from the Republicans like we have never seen so brazenly as lately and get on with increasing the number to as many will be necessary to ensure a progressive majority.
#15167299
Unthinking Majority wrote:I too would prefer a Democrat-majority court, but this isn't the way to do it, and sets a very dangerous precedent. This verges on tyranny and is against what the Founding Fathers intended.

First off the founders were deeply divided in their intentions. The Constitution is in significant part confused, vague and ambiguous by intention. It was the founders way of agreeing to disagree over fundamental principles. Most of the founders loved tyranny, absolutely loved it. the problem was that they disagreed on which tyrannies they loved and which they wanted to defend. Part of the purpose of the compromise that was the Constitution was to not just to defend the institution of slavery against the wishes of its African slaves, but also against the wishes of a future majority of the racially European citizens.

The Constitution was in large part written in expectation of civil war, a civil war however that the founders couldn't be sure which side they would be on. The founders couldn't be sure whether they would be with the government or with the rebels.
#15167311
The belief that anyone would support this is astonishing. Government tends to work the best when one party, regardless of the party, isn't in absolute control. This bill would be designed to do just that.

If there was at LEAST Republican control in either of the other 3 facets (executive, Senate, House), I'd be okay with it. To say that this is tyrannical is not very off the mark whatsoever.
#15167315
Most of you here are not aware of how US judicial system works. It is funny to read your reactions. :lol:

Unlike other countries, judicial appointments are made by executive (the president) and legislative branches (the congress). Since Democrat Party won both executive and legislative branches of government, It is their natural right to appoint those favoring their interests.

They have reasonable arguments too. It is told that number of federal judges and SC judges stayed the same while US population increased dramatically over decades. There may be a need for packing courts to meet excess work.
#15167316
Kids, unbunch thy panties...

The court has changed size a number of times.

Moscow Mitch didn't just pack the Supreme Court. The 1st Circuit is in some ways more important than the SC, and he also packed that with kooks.

The word rationality is derived from ratio. Bringing back rationality means you have to restore the ratio.

It's not something Biden likes or wants, just look at his history. But the fanatical extremism of the Right is forcing his hand.
#15167321
late wrote:The court has changed size a number of times.


Its size hasn't changed since 1869, right after the civil war.

Packing the supreme court is a well-known move by any wanna-be dictator. If the Dems do it now, the Republicans are guaranteed to do it next. It will render the court completely illegitimate in the eyes of Americans at a time when it is more needed than ever.

It's not something Biden likes or wants, just look at his history. But the fanatical extremism of the Right is forcing his hand.


Not at all. The current supreme court just upheld an election result against vicious attacks from the right. Time to set your priorities straight.
#15167322
Istanbuller wrote:They have reasonable arguments too. It is told that number of federal judges and SC judges stayed the same while US population increased dramatically over decades. There may be a need for packing courts to meet excess work.


Yeah, um, no. The reason that Congressional seat counts change is to reflect percentages of population to keep relative power where it is, per capita. I promise that the Supreme Court doesn't have "excess work". They don't even preside over a vast percentages of cases brought to it. On top of that, each Justice has a loooooot of clerks, assistants, and other various stooges to make sure they aren't subjected to the insult of a typical 9-5.

Packing is nothing more than it appears to be - to sway the pendulum from the only branch of government left that Democrats do not outright control at this point in time.
#15167323
How is it a wannabe dictator move? Learn something before you talk.

All federal judges and SC judges are appointed by the president and approved by the senate. The US political system allows judiciary in accordance with political results.

US presidents have term limits and those judges serve more time than political actors. After a period of time, those judges do not feel obligated to people who appointed them. That is beautiful.

Most gaps are filled by previous administration. There is no choice left but packing courts. This bill is also in accordance with Democrat Party's political position. The party is for bigger government. ;)
#15167332
This would be the dumbest move the Democrats could possibly make, even more so since this SCOTUS isn't all that pro-Trump and seems to be trying not to legitimize these types of moves.

It seems FDR used this possibility as a threat during the Depression, but back then the SCOTUS was frontally opposed to his administration. This SCOTUS, however, even further legitimized Biden's win.
#15167338
Goranhammer wrote:Yeah, um, no. The reason that Congressional seat counts change is to reflect percentages of population to keep relative power where it is, per capita. I promise that the Supreme Court doesn't have "excess work". They don't even preside over a vast percentages of cases brought to it. On top of that, each Justice has a loooooot of clerks, assistants, and other various stooges to make sure they aren't subjected to the insult of a typical 9-5.

Packing is nothing more than it appears to be - to sway the pendulum from the only branch of government left that Democrats do not outright control at this point in time.

I say that Democrats have power to do that. I do not say Republicans should not fight back. If you have power to do, fight then.
#15167341
Unthinking Majority wrote:https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/democrats-introduce-bill-expand-supreme-court-9-13-justices-n1264132

I too would prefer a Democrat-majority court, but this isn't the way to do it, and sets a very dangerous precedent. This verges on tyranny and is against what the Founding Fathers intended. This is unwise and will blow up in the face of the Dems. If this would pass it could be the worst US policy decision since the Iraq War.

Thankfully Biden doesn't seem on board nor is Nancy Pelosi, at least they're still sane. The chances are nil for this passing, and Biden could likely have a veto.


Yea, what they should be doing is finally officially limiting it to 9.
#15167344
Istanbuller wrote:Supreme Court should be dynamic rather than static. Judges and decisions should reflect the public and changing conditions.


This would completely compromise the 3rd branch of government, and completely destroy checks and balances.

If anything, introduce term limits to the justices, like 15-20 years or something. Something like this would allow what you are saying, but in a more "rolling average" kind of way. As opposed to a violent back and forth with each new presidential term.

Sometimes the slowness in governments to react is good. The public is often too short sighted or easily manipulated.. too fickle. Insulating the government from that a little would be a good thing.
#15167348
For once I agree with @Istanbuller.

Mitch McConnell has spent the last twelve years destroying the legislative branch so he could pack the courts. If this bill passes, it will undo his entire legacy. All of his long years of obstructionism, and absolutely nothing to show for it. After this, there will never again be another Mitch McConnell.
#15167349
This would be a very wise and deeply amusing move if Democrats had say 55 votes in the Senate. :lol: It would flush decades, simply decades of work by millions of Conservatives down the toilet in a matter of months. However its not a good move a the moment because Biden doesn't have a really reliable majority to pack the court with a set of hard liberal justices. I could be wrong but I suspect this is just posturing to keep Liberal / left Democrats on board.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
Hartlepool By-Election

My interpretation of that is that at this moment […]

It seems his main selling point doesn't work anym[…]

I had thought the upper levels of the military wer[…]

To be fair to @Istanbuller F35s can't fly if it[…]