Do You Support Increasing the Size of the Supreme Court?

1. 86

   RJ Schwartzposted 5 years ago

   Following the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh, some Democratic groups are how debating a new tactic; pushing a scheme to "balance" the court by adding more seats (which they hope to fill will Liberal Judges).
   
   Additionally, Democrat think-tanks are proposing to end the lifetime tenure of a Justice and move to a system which allows each President to pick two Justices per term.  This proposal would see the total number of seats at eleven.
   
   The Supreme Court originally had 6 seats, and after a few changes, settled on 9 members (since 1869) and things have worked well since then.
   
   Is this another case of "sore-loser" syndrome or does it have a legitimate foundation in moving the nation forward?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I support:
      
      1. Keeping it the same size.
      
      2. No longer loading it with extremists from either side.
      
      3. Protecting what's left of its credibility.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000, Promisem.

         replyreport
         1. 88

            MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            That sounds good to me, but how do we do that when everybody in Washington seems to be an extremist of one sort or another?

            replyreport
            1. 86

               RJ Schwartzposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Agreed - but what's interesting is that the small percentage of "Washington Insiders" has lost touch with much of mainstream America.  I personally do not believe that any agenda whether it's left-wing or right-wing, that goes for a "win" for their side rather than a "win" for mainstream America is worth pursuing.

               replyreport
      2. 95

         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         "No longer loading it with extremists from either side."
         
         Is that even possible?  When Kavanaugh is flayed alive for saying he did not see RvW as set in stone, can we not assume that any candidate that said it was not would also be whipped in public?  Is there any answer to such a question that would not be considered "extremist" by the party that disliked the answer?
         
         Not sure there is a lot of credibility left anyway - when most decisions are rendered along party lines, with each Justice following the same party line every vote, I'm not sure the court has very much more credibility than Congress, and that is just short of zero.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            It's possible from responsible Presidents who care more for their country than they do for their political party.
            
            In the past, Presidents often chose moderates to create a balance with liberals and conservatives on the court.
            
            Sanda Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy were recent examples.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               I think you missed the point.  Trump chose a constitutionalist - one that will vote law rather than party.
               
               But it wasn't enough - he thought the law allowed change to RvW.  Completely, 100%, extremest because he would not back the incorrect notion that it is set in stone.
               
               Every person will forever be "extremist" - if for no other reason because they refuse to legislate from the bench the way the speaker wants them to.

               replyreport
               1. 88

                  MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Wilderness, I believed that, too, and I was leaning toward favoring Kavanaugh until he let loose with that tirade and also was so rude and disrespectful to Senator Klobachar while she was asking him routine questions. His response to her was juvenile, smartass and dumb. How can he act like that and convince the rest of us that he's outgrown his frat-rat ways?

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     How perceptions differ!  I liked his "tirade" and felt it was more than appropriate under the circumstances.  Not a single Democrat asked a single "routine question"; the only thing they asked was "Why won't you help us subvert the will of the committee and work to deny your confirmation?"  And if his response was "Juvenile, smartass and dumb", it matched the question.

                     replyreport
                  2. 0

                     promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     "I might have been too emotional at times." - Brett Kavanaugh
                     
                     Interesting that he virtually admits his tirade, but his supporters still won't. How predictable.

                     replyreport
                     1. 85

                        gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Of course, it is par for course.

                        replyreport
                     2. 88

                        MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Yep, so it is.

                        replyreport
                  3. 86

                     RJ Schwartzposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     I'm sorry, but if I were being attacked like the Judge was, I'd probably lose it too.  I'm sure he felt he had nothing to lose at that point, after being slandered and falsely accused multiple times.  If evidence of him being a poor Judge were the subject of the hearings, that would be one thing, but purposefully smearing the guy goes too far.  I'm sure there are people who think he is guilty, but if we allow ourselves and out nation to forget due process, then we lose a foundation of our nation.

                     replyreport
               2. 0

                  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Blaming the Clintons for the accusations against him at his hearings? That's not a partisan extremist?
                  
                  He already sounds more loyal to Fox News than to the Constitution.

                  replyreport
                  1. 85

                     gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Blaming the Clintons for the accusations was totally hackneyed.  He was being extremely partisan.   Unfortunately, Promisem, that is our Supreme Court Justice.   The current White House is one of utter immaturity from Trump down.   Kindergarteners are more mature than either Trump or Kavanaugh.

                     replyreport
                     1. 88

                        MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        +1,000,000,000,000,000

                        replyreport
                  2. 88

                     MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Thank you, Promisem.

                     replyreport
   2. 79

      Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      No, the intent of the founders and (1837) is fine. There is no reason to change the numbers of justices on the court. Partisan games is not a reason to change this.
      
      But now that we have a right wing tribunal posing as "The Supreme Court", I will have to rely on a flipped chamber of congress to stop the reactionary onslaught.

      replyreport
      1. 88

         GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         If the majority was perceived as Liberal, would you then view it as a Left-wing tribunal? Would you feel the same sense illegitimacy?
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            GA, I hail back to the good ole days of the "activist" Warren Court.
            
            I will always fear right wing domination over the left, if I had to accept one excess over the other.
            
            So, I can't pretend to be impartial over such a matter.
            
            I distrust the Right and it is certainly not front page news.

            replyreport
   3. 61

      Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Presidents pick two justices per term? As if the process hasn't devolved enough? That way our third branch of government could just be a rubber stamp for a sitting president?
      
      No thanks on that one.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It IS sore loser syndrome.  The Supreme Court has been left or left leaning for decades, and now that the balance seems to be shifting, radical leftists are in a tizzy.

      replyreport
      1. 88

         MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Sore loser syndrome? How can we trust a candidate for a lifetime appointment who behaves like a real smartass in a hearing. This guy is still a juvenile. I'm anxious to see how he treats the members of the supreme court who disagree with him.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Kavanaugh was torqued off about the Democratic Senators' obvious agenda of humiliating him.  I don't blame him, and don't expect any Supreme Court nominee or Justice to behave as if they're not being personally attacked. I do have a problem with the Democratic Senators who questioned him.  Can't really trust them with the country's affairs when they act like children.

            replyreport
         2. 85

            gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Kavanaugh wasn't professional at all during the interview.   He would be classified as belligerent.   He was overly promotional instead of calm & collected.  Totally classless. Yes, I too wonder how he will treat members of the Supreme Court who disagree with him.  He was highly disrespectful to the senators.

            replyreport
            1. 88

               MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               He was disrespectful, and the conservative commenters are egging him on. However, I think the other justices will be able to cut him down to size.

               replyreport
            2. 0

               Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               I agree that Kavanaugh wasn't respectful to some of the Democratic Senators who were, clearly, trying to ruin him.  They were engaged in personal destruction, not truth seeking.  These Senators themselves were extremely disrespectful, and Kavanaugh called them on their game, repeatedly.  Could he have done it differently? Maybe yes,but I'll bet he never figured he'd be treated the way he was treated there.

               replyreport
   5. 81

      Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Short of a Constitutional amendment (unrealistic) or impeachment (unlikely) I can't see how the issue of an overtly partisan Supreme Court can be addressed.
      
      Packing the court is an option, but not an ideal one. Depends on how egregious court decisions get.

      replyreport
      1. 88

         MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I think adding more positions would just be adding gasoline to the fire. The only difference I see would be that each vote might be diluted a little depending on the number of justices added.

         replyreport
2. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

   This falls entirely to liberals constantly "moving the goal posts ", when in failure mode , change the rules .   Lose an election --go to popular vote .      Lose the popular vote go to electoral college ......lost  the supreme courts----add more judges .
   
   You failed across the board ---Get over yourselves .

   replyreport
   1. 88

      MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Usual right-wing tea party rhetoric. Divisive in itself and not helpful at all.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         RJ Schwartzposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         If it isn't "moving the goalposts" then how to you explain the actions of the Democratic Party?  Do you think Dianne Feinstein did the right thing by holding back on the letter and creating a political circus of the hearings?  Why didn't she follow protocol and offer it up when she first had it?  Why go to the media instead of the Senate with things?  Why withhold the polygraphs?

         replyreport
         1. 88

            MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            She gave her reasons. Professor Ford requested anonymity. I don't think Ford should have done that, nor do I think she should have expected to be kept anonymous. Without a name and a face the accusation was useless.

            replyreport
3. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

   I know enough about the selfish entitlements of liberals , the idiosyncrasies  of their collective and extremely sensitive personalities to know that if their families were  accosted as Kavanaugh has been in character , honor and integrity , it would  literally fry democratic  brains .
   
   And you all think Kavanaugh "lost it when attacked as he was , I would have been disappointed had he not lashed out .

   replyreport
   1. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Liberals are far from selfish. Liberals are the most caring people around.  Liberals care how others are treated & have made reforms to ensure more humane treatment, especially of people who are marginalized by society.  Okay, Liberals have done bad things e.g. instituting welfare; however, that was initially done w/good intentions.  If it weren't for Liberals, America would be a quite regressive nation where women, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, LGBT people, & other marginalized people would have little or no human nor civil rights.  Liberals are the least selfish of all.  One would describe Liberals as totally altruistic.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      "And you all think Kavanaugh "lost it when attacked as he was , I would have been disappointed had he not lashed out".
      
      Had he not responded to such treatment, I would have thought Kavanaugh a zombie.  The way Democratic Senators treated him made a mockery of the confirmation process.  I heard Kamala Harris refer to the hearings as a "sham". Well, she's right, they were a sham; Kamala Harris and her colleagues made them that way.

      replyreport
4. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

   For Liberals who can't get over the Kavanaugh confirmation ;
   
   
   
   How do you think WE feel when we watch Ginsberg fall asleep ?
   
   It's okay , Next !

   replyreport
5. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

   Feinstein is one of the original Californika activists for socialism , ANYTHING to disrupt the system that she views as winning against HER wishes , The Alinsky's of the world gather around themselves and their children to retell  bias tales of socialist utopias .     There was evil written all over her face from the beginning , any people of a state that keeps reelecting these enemies of America  should be economically punished until they change the guards .
   
   -Diane Feinstein, Bernie Sanders  , Maxine Waters , so many socialists   , so many voters asleep in the voting booth.
   
   Best choice , Vote the republican ticket . Get them out of there .

   replyreport
   1. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The only socialist I see among the abovementioned politicians is Bernie Sanders.  He is an avowed socialist & quite open about his socialist leanings.  Feinstein & Waters are more moderate.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         lovetherainposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         what's wrong with being a socialist?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Nothing is "wrong" with being one, but having socialists in office is wrong.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               lovetherainposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               why?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Because they seek to enact socialist policies.

                  replyreport
                  1. 80

                     lovetherainposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     so?

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        So, the US Constitution prohibits the federal government from being the Sugar Daddy of the American people - that's black and white.  But really, what do socialist policies do?  They take money from some and give it to others; in essence, they steal.
                        
                        My perspective goes even further.  Socialism increases humans' dependentcy on government, basically making government a god.  That god can (and does) rule people's lives.  If the government wants a certain kind of behavior, it says "Do this, and you keep getting food, shelter, pay" - whatever it is.  Socialism leads to people becoming sheep.  That's the bigger picture.

                        replyreport
                        1. 80

                           lovetherainposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           Government takes money and gives it to others every day. It's called taxes.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              Socialism goes much further than mere taxation for legitimate government functions.

                              replyreport
                              1. 80

                                 lovetherainposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 Like socialized health care?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                    Sure.  And so much more.

                                    replyreport
      2. 95

         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         How anyone can call Feinstein "moderate" after her recent performance is beyond me.

         replyreport
   2. 88

      MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      There's "evil written all over the face" of any politician who disagrees with you, so I'm not surprised at your answer.

      replyreport