Democrats Want To Pack Court With Four New Judges

1. 81

   GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

   "Democrats to introduce bill to expand Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices"
   
   "Congressional Democrats will introduce legislation Thursday to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices, joining progressive activists pushing to transform the court.
   
   The move intensifies a high-stakes ideological fight over the future of the court after President Donald Trump and Republicans appointed three conservative justices in four years, including one who was confirmed days before the 2020 election.
   
   The Democratic bill is led by Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee. It is co-sponsored by Reps. Hank Johnson of Georgia and Mondaire Jones of New York."
   
   Source: NBC News
   
   To put it mildly, I think this will hurt the Court's credibility. How can the public view this other than just more politicization of the court?
   
   I think this will hurt the Democrats in the mid-terms just like Gingrich's Contract with America did with the Republicans in 1994.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I think the court's credibility is already hurt after Garland and Coney Barrett got different treatment despite very similar situations.  So if one side decides to play politics with nominations, the other side is going to have their turn to balance it out when they are in power.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Is that a Democrat mantra; two wrongs can make a right?
         
         I don't think the Garland/Barret fiasco is viewed by the public as Court's fault—in the sense of politicizing the Court. But I do think a Democrat expansion will be viewed as such.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 89

            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Probably.  There is zero chance that any Democrat expansion is not being done for the express purpose of politicizing the court.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Or to right an inconsistent application of our laws done for a political power grab.

               replyreport
         2. 75

            Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Are you joking?  Maybe it's not see as politicizing the court to GOP voters, but it's definitely seen that way by the Democrats. 
            
            It's a science mantra, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  Being of the party that believes in science, that was easy to share.

            replyreport
      2. 89

         wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         And their turn comes when there is a vacancy on the court, just as it did for Republicans.

         replyreport
         1. 75

            Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            As the party of the Constitution, you may well note that the number of justices is not stipulated there.  In fact, there have been many times that the numbers have been increased and lowered.  Some were actually due to political considerations.  This is not without precedent.

            replyreport
   2. 87

      tsmogposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think it will hurt the court's credibility nor integrity since that is determined by justices themselves IMHO. However, I emphatically agree it is politicizing the court, yet gaining justices is always politicizing the court isn't it?

      replyreport
      1. 81

         GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         We disagree tsmog. But to be clear, I am talking first, about the public's perception of the Court's integrity, and then second, about the Court's perception of itself.
         
         Surely if four new judges are added by a Democrat administration due to a Democrat-driven expansion of the court, I don't see how those new judges can't see themselves as appointed for political purposes rather than judicial ones. How can such a self-perception not lead to the politicization of their decisions?
         
         And yes, I do realize that the appointment of any judge is a political matter, but such `normal' appointments have at least the patina of the credibility of being done under the rules of the game. I don't think the public will see the new judges as having that patina of credibility. It will clearly be seen as a purely political move on the one branch of our government that is supposed to be above politics. I think this is a lose-lose-lose proposition; the Court will lose stature, the public will lose trust in it, and the Democrats will lose in the mid-terms.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 89

            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            The job itself will open up because of the effort to produce votes along the liberal agenda.  The justices will be chosen to fill that job, and with the full understanding that the job was to produce liberal votes.
            
            How else could a new justice feel but that their task, the reason they are there, is to produce verdicts along that liberal agenda?  There is always some of that with any justice, but this time the very job itself is an undeniable effort to politicize the entire court.

            replyreport
         2. 87

            tsmogposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Interesting and I respect that view. Firstly, I am not in favor of changing the court, even though it is majority conservative. I guess you can consider me not part of the public. I think every judge has the notion they were appointed for political purposes, yet believe it is because of their judicial integrity. I imagine at times they may struggle with that much less some wrestling with God's law is supreme. Personally, I bank on their judicial integrity.
            
            I don't know about stature especially since a peek told me it has changed six times. I did not lose trust in it with Trump's appointments, yet that is my only experience with paying attention to it. I think the Democrats are going to lose mid-terms even without the proposal going through.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Those six changes were in the first 80 years of our Constitutional government. It hasn't changed once in the succeeding 150 years.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  So I take it you are sad that women and black people can now vote then since we've changed those things in the last 150 years.

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Making assumptions of what others think are you?

                     replyreport
                     1. 75

                        Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Move along old man.  I'm having a conversation with a reasonable person.

                        replyreport
                  2. 81

                     GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Sure, you can take it that I am sad that women and Blacks can now vote if that is what it takes for you to rationalize your support for this court-packing drive. You wouldn't be right, but what the hell, go for it.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 75

                        Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        That was simply sarcasm.  I know you better than that.  Just trying to make a point that sometimes it's appropriate for laws to adjust with the times.  In these times, unequal application of laws gives Democrats cause to play politics in this situation.

                        replyreport
                        1. 89

                           wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           "Unequal application of laws"?  As in making constitutional decisions rather than following the Democrat party line?  Is that what you call "unequal application of laws"?

                           replyreport
                        2. 81

                           GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           You must know me better than I know myself. I thought that sarcasm was completely appropriate for your statement. The discussion wasn't about laws changing, it was about the game changing for the purpose of political goals.
                           
                           The issue isn't about unequal "application" of laws, it is about the political agendas involved in the interpretation of the laws.
                           
                           GA

                           replyreport
               2. 87

                  tsmogposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Thanks for the info sending me on a journey of learning. Remember I am not in favor of making a change to the court. For what it is worth as justification I view the Supreme Court with its justices with an idealist view as I do the Constitution. That may have been grasped with the first paragraph in my previous reply.
                  
                  Still having that mindset at the time I answered stature I held the court in good standing overall, though it changes as evidenced by those six. After my jaunt of learning I can see easily Democrats may not hold it in good standing since it has been a Republican appointed court the majority of those 150 years. And, I imagine that period of time it was majority Democrat appointments Republican's didn't hold it in good standing. So, now, without digging deep looking at decisions I feel stature ebbs and flows probably more so with decisions and those do change when overturned. For example Roe v Wade decided by a Republican appointed court and the probability of being overturned.
                  
                  But, I do have a realist side of me too knowing politics, national governing, world view, religion, and etc. is always lurking and poking its nose in the works. And, I am still learning about those as I go along.

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     If you are right about the Court being predominately conservative for the majority of the years since the last change to the Court's size, then a good question might be "why?"  Could it be a case of ` just the luck of the draw' relative to bench seat openings?
                     
                     I understand that there have always been political ideologies involved in Justice nominations, but I think, generally speaking, that that was already a `given' in most minds. However, I think that an expansion move now, and one such as the Democrats are floating would toss the image of the Supreme Court into the basket as just another branch of Congress.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        I think you're right - just another branch of Congress.  And a very dirty, swampy one to boot, meaning we need Trump or another like him back to complete the cleanup to an awful lot of people.
                        
                        I really believe that by such a political machination as stacking the court to favor liberalism that liberals would be cutting their own throat.  Liberal or Conservative, people really are fed up with "business as usual" on the Hill, and this purely political ploy to gain additional power could not be a better indication of just how that "business as usual" is playing the pawns we call the American people.

                        replyreport
                     2. 87

                        tsmogposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Sharing from my journey after reading about those six changes I was curious about past justices tenure and appointments. I discovered Supreme Court Justice Charts, History of Appointments have Favored Republicans from WebLine News. Now, don't be alarmed it is a left learning site. The information is factual. The chart spans 1857 - 2015 while most know what transpired after that.
                        
                        It is worth a glance as it gives insightful information. The timeline at the top showing Republican and Democrat White House control color coded. Below that the justices by name and their time in service also color coded. They have three additional charts that I didn't really look at hard. But, that first one is revealing with a glance. I bookmarked for use with when I learn about past decisions sometime in the future.
                        
                        As to why its been Republican appointments the majority of time perhaps it was as you say the luck of the draw or providence favoring Republicans. Evolution?
                        
                        I understand what you are saying with just another branch of Congress. I, too, hold the court in high regard and see no reason to change it at this time especially just as a political scheme to gain power.

                        replyreport
         3. 81

            Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            How can such a self-perception not lead to the politicization of their decisions?
            
            Donald Trump appointed the lastest member with exactly that idea in mind.....

            replyreport
   3. 81

      Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      GA, If this needs to be done I could see expanding the court to 11 justices tprather than 13, in all fairness.
      
      Otherwise, I say "tough tushie" to the conservatives and Republicans. They were warned that their partisan hypocritical behavior and theft regarding their filling two supreme courts seats would have consequences, and guess what, that is what you get.
      
      I think that the court and the Democrats will do just fine. But, as I say 11 is a more palatable number.

      replyreport
   4. 87

      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Court-packing or changes to the size of the Supreme Court could offer one party the opportunity to manipulate the Court's membership and ultimately the decisions that are handed down by the court.  In my view, a political party that's engaged in court packing will ultimately have the power to violate America's historical norms, to promote their own ideologies.  The court will become nothing but another arm of the legislative arm of government. We will lose the judicial branch that we have come to respect as a very important branch of government. The branch that dictates the fairness of our laws, interprets our laws...
      
      I must agree packing the court will hurt the Court's credibility. I would surmise the majority of the country would agree with our sentiment.   This latest Democrat ploy will most certainly be seen by most American's as nothing but an attempt to politicize the Supreme court. And if they pull it off,  it will put us one step closer to the destruction of the  Constitution. This is simply a dream situation for the Biden Administration. 
      
      Let's see what happens when push comes to shove...   I think it's a great big nail in the Dem's coffin politically. Hopefully

      replyreport
   5. 87

      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      "Pelosi shoots down bill to expand Supreme Court — but says more justices ‘not out of the question’"
      House Speaker Nancy Pelosi poured cold water on a bill Thursday that would add four seats to the Supreme Court, saying she has “no plans” to put up the high-stakes measure for a vote.
      
      “I don’t know that that’s a good idea or a bad idea,” Pelosi told reporters about the legislation, which was introduced in the House earlier in the day by New York Reps. Jerry Nadler and Mondaire Jones, with assistance from Rep. Hank Johnson, a fellow Democrat from Georgia."
      
      I would say, good Ol' Nancy believes in survival of the fittest. She seems to not be willing to go down with the ship. Her head is always just above the water. Got to give her Kudo's
      
      https://www.aol.com/news/democratic-sen … 26683.html

      replyreport
2. 84

   RJ Schwartzposted 3 years ago

   Power grab - pure and simple.
   There is absolutely zero reason to add justices to the court & everyone knows it

   replyreport
3. 69

   abwilliamsposted 3 years ago

   Oh shoot, I can't look into right now, maybe someone can share it. It's of Joe Biden calling packing the courts "boneheaded"!?!

   replyreport
4. 75

   Valeantposted 3 years ago

   Just saw this and had to laugh:
   
   'Kavanaugh favors court expansion as long as new justices being their own beer.'

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      LOL

      replyreport
5. 69

   Freeway Flyerposted 3 years ago

   I agree that packing the court is probably a mistake, but I can understand why Democrats might be considering it. Republicans tend to win the political battles because they are more willing to do what it takes to win. They were willing to alter the rules so that a simple majority was all that is needed to get people on the federal courts. They were willing to confirm a Supreme Court justice barely before an election. Democrats in the same situation would have probably been too big of wimps to take the same actions.
   
   So maybe they shouldn't do something as drastic as packing the Supreme Court. But they should be willing to trash the existing rules regarding filibusters. The Constitution says that a simple majority is all that is needed to pass legislation in the Senate. So it's time to get away from this idiotic situation in which 60 votes are needed to get just about anything of significance done.

   replyreport
6. 73

   Kathleen Cochranposted 3 years ago

   As a Democrat, I think this is the wrong solution to the problem. There should be four seats per each major party designated for a justice nominated by the Senate judicial committee and approved by the entire Senate when a vacancy arises. The Chief Justice should be nominated by the House judicial committee and approved by the entire House. Playing Russian Roulette with the highest court in the land based on who is in the White House at the time of a vacancy makes the court by definition partisan.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting idea, though I can't think of a better way to advertise that the Supreme Court in our nation is riddled and controlled by politics rather than law.
      
      Still, it has merit and should be evaluated.

      replyreport
   2. 81

      Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      As a Democrat, I think that is a good idea, maintaining ideological balance on the court, removing the partisan nature of the appointments, etc.
      
      But, it might take a Constitutional Amendment, but would Republicans really concede to a fair system?

      replyreport