The number of Supreme Court justices

1. 76

   Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

   The population of the US was a small fraction of what it has been since the number of Supreme Court justices was set. Many European countries have high courts with higher numbers than ours even though their populations are much smaller. Politics aside, Is it representative of our population to have only nine justices?

   replyreport
   1. 99

      DrMark1961posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Are you thinking one for each state, one for each congressional district, or  one for each region? Could you use this same logic and have two or three presidents?

      replyreport
2. 79

   Credence2posted 2 months ago

   I say that is a solution to the two court seats taken by McConnell and Trump under unethical circumstances. Increase the court to 11, that is the one remedy to a court out of control that the SC claims of separation of powers cant prevent.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      "under unethical circumstances"
      
      What unethical circumstances?  They filled vacancies on the Supreme Court in accordance with the US Constitution.
      
      There was nothing unethical about it.

      replyreport
   2. 72

      Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      And I say no.
      
      Not until the Republicans have control of Congress and the Exec Office.
      
      Then we can pursue this plan and add two more seats to the Supreme Court. 
      
      But not until then.

      replyreport
3. 76

   Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

   I won't even honor this reaction with a retort. You know as well as I do the crap Mitch McConnell pulled. Don't embarrass yourself.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      No, reality is reality, it was done according to the constitution.
      
      Don't embarrass yourself with a lack of knowledge on the process of filling a seat on the Supreme Court.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Willowarborposted 2 months agoin reply to this

         What was constitutional about denying Obama's Supreme Court pick a hearing  237 days before an election but ramming Amy Coney Barrett down our throats 8 days before the election?  Please elaborate .
         
         Let's go back to Mitch McConnell's words..
         
         When a vacancy on the Supreme Court arose nine months ahead of the election in 2016, Sen. Mitch McConnell said in no uncertain terms: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.  Mind you, this was 237 days out.
         
         Why didn't the same thinking prevail at the time of Barrett's nomination? Hypocrisy?

         replyreport
         1. 95

            Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            The leader of the Senate is under NO obligation to put anyone forward for a vote to fill a Supreme Court seat.  The democrats should be angry they didn't have control of the Senate.  That is the real problem.  When a party controls the Senate, these are the things the party in power gets to do. They get to choose who is put forward for a vote to fill a seat in the Supreme Court.
            
            Yes, THAT is how it works with the Constitution of the United States.
            
            The rules were followed.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Willowarborposted 2 months agoin reply to this

               When a vacancy on the Supreme Court arose nine months ahead of the election in 2016, McConnell said in no uncertain terms: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.  Mind you, this was 237 days out.
               
               So it was not okay to have a hearing for Obama's nominee 237 days out, because it was too close to an election according to McConnell but it was perfectly acceptable to have Barrett's hearing 30 days out  from an election. I believe.
               
               What's the difference? Seems like hypocrisy when reasoning isn't applied equally.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  When your party controls the Senate, you get to make the calls.
                  
                  That is how it's worked for over 200 years.
                  
                  The Senate today is even.  Since the democrats have the presidency, the vice president gets to cast the tie-breaking vote.
                  
                  The Republicans don't have control of the Senate, so their legislation gets voted down by 1 vote by the vice president.
                  
                  That's how it works according to the US Constitution.
                  
                  Republicans aren't complaining because that is how it works.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Willowarborposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                     You see no hypocrisy in that situation? McConnell didn't follow his reasoning when he denied Obama but forced Barrett upon us.  The people didn't get to choose did they? And it seems like you're saying that's perfectly okay.

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                        They followed the rules for filling a vacancy as set forth by the US Constitution.
                        
                        Yes, the people did get to choose.  They elected the Senators who followed rules of the US Constitution and filled the vacancy on the Supreme Court. 
                        
                        So, yes, everything associated with filling the seat on the Supreme Court is perfectly okay.
                        
                        Sorry, but that is the reality of the world and how it works.
                        
                        If the democrats had been in the same position as the Republicans, they would have done the exact same thing.

                        replyreport
                        1. 79

                           Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                           "If the democrats had been in the same position as the Republicans, they would have done the exact same thing"
                           
                           You can speculate all you like, Mike, but the point is that they have not done it and your side has. As a result, I am not for working with the Right on ANY level.

                           replyreport
4. 68

   abwilliamsposted 2 months ago

   Everything Dems touch gets spoiled. Let's leave this be, it's a good number.
   Do Not Touch!
   
   Hi everyone. Did you miss me? Lol
   Hope ya'll had a wonderful Independence Day celebrating the greatest Country (aka: Republic) that God gave man; the United States of America!

   replyreport
   1. 95

      Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Hope all is well with you.

      replyreport
      1. 68

         abwilliamsposted 2 months agoin reply to this

         Thanks Mike. Turns out that my heart isn't what it once was. Stress takes a toll on it, therefore, on me. Will have to keep my visits to the forums limited.

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            You gotta learn to laugh girl...
            
            If you didn't find the debate... OK outside of maybe the first couple moments of watching poor Joe try to speak, which probably had your jaw dropping to the floor (mine did too), but once you were over that initial surprise/shock... the most hysterical thing you have ever watched, then yes, you need to stay away from politics more than you do.
            
            Come on!!!
            
            Using a Deep Resounding Voice:
            
            Ladies and Gentlemen... and non-binaries... and non-descripts... etc.
            
            The President of the United States of America!
            
            Leader of the Free World!
            
            President Joe Biden!
            
            
            Yeah... no wonder the rest of the world is scurrying to join up with Putin and Xi.

            replyreport
            1. 68

               abwilliamsposted 2 months agoin reply to this

               Still laughing, while pacing myself!
               
               Very much involved in defeating Joe Biden and all who seek to dismantle us into extinction.

               replyreport
5. 76

   Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

   Some will absolutely excuse anything. I've said it many times. They have lost their judgement and are far beyond being embarrassed by their actions.

   replyreport
6. 76

   Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

   One can speculate about whether the Democrats would have done the same thing, but the fact is that only the republicans have done it - twice. There are rules and their are ethics. The person who is ethical will always be the better person than the one who is only limited in what he does by rules. It's called "character" - not that the GOP would know what that means.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I have no idea what you are talking about.
      
      The US Constitution says when there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court the president of the United States puts forth a nomination and then the Senate votes on the nominee.
      
      That is what happened in both cases.
      
      I think what Mitch McConnell did was the right thing.  There is no law that says the Senate has to bring any person nominated by the president for a vote.
      
      What Mitch McConnell did was both legal and ethical.
      
      Simply because the left didn't get their way doesn't make it unethical.
      
      Maybe the left needs to learn that's not how ethics works.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Willowarborposted 2 months agoin reply to this

         I think we on the left see the hypocrisy of McConnell's actions.  We also see that the right is perfectly fine with such when it suits their agenda. Those who defend McConnell's actions, legitimize hypocrisy.
         
         Is hypocrisy ethical?   For me, it  is part of a dishonest character.  How exactly does ethics work for maga?  The reason Obama's SCOTUS  pick couldn't  get a hearing was completely reversed for Barrett.  THAT is not ethical and Republicans completely embraced it.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            I disagree.
            
            It was completely ethical.
            
            All the rules associated with choosing a new Supreme Court Justice were followed.
            
            The left has to learn you can't have everything your way simply because you want it.  Not everything is going to go your way.  This is how life works.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Willowarborposted 2 months agoin reply to this

               In a 2016 op-ed co-written by McConnell, he implored that the American people be given the opportunity to “weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.’'
               
               McConnell said that stance showed that his decision was "about a principle, not a person"   what happened to that  principle when RBG died?
               
               Hypocrisy used to be an unforgivable sin in politics. Now it has become just another character flaw normalized by  Trump.
               
               Politics SHOULD  be about real and consistent principles.  The question stands, very simply:  do you find hypocrisy to be ethical?

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  Again, the people were given the opportunity to weigh in by electing a majority Republicans in the Senate and a Republican president.  That is how it works in a representative republic. 
                  
                  I don't see any hypocrisy at all.  As the Republican leader of the Senate, it is McConnell's job to see to it that a conservate justice fills the seat at the Supreme Court.  He delivered for his team.  McConnell did his job.  Being loyal and following the rules is very principled.
                  
                  You really need to accept the reality of politics and how the system works.

                  replyreport
7. 76

   Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

   Dr. Mark: "Could you use this same logic and have two or three presidents?" Apples and oranges. Must conservatives always go to extremes?

   replyreport
   1. 99

      DrMark1961posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Not suprised at an extremist reply from a leftist that is not connected to reality. Why is it that leftists are so against reality?
      
      It was a serious question. Anyone but an extremist would realize that.

      replyreport
8. 76

   Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

   You really need to accept hypocrisy when it is staring you in the face.
   
   Sorry. I forgot. You are a republican.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      You need to learn to deal with reality.
      
      The dedication to a fantasy world is crushing the democrat party, and most democrats don't get it.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Willowarborposted 2 months agoin reply to this

         You seem to be ignoring McConnell's statement as to his reasoning in denying Obama's SCOTUS pick. 
         
         If it was too close to an election for Obama's pick to receive a hearing then why wasn't it when Barrett was rammed down our throats at warp speed?  Simply put, McConnell didn't hold to his reasoning or as he called it a matter of "principle" when RBG died.  The man is a hypocrite.
         
         There are also a multitude of constitutional scholars who say that McConnell was not acting within the parameters of the Constitution and that Garland was due a hearing.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Have you ever heard of the term "sour grapes?"

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Willowarborposted 2 months agoin reply to this

               Deflection.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  ??I didn't think so - whether right or wrong, I took the comment to mean something along the lines of "you know that isn't true, so you are simply complaining of a reasonable result you didn't like."
                  
                  No deflection at all; a rather straightforward reply with a straightforward meaning.  It is becoming more and more common in these forums to complain of deflection (possibly because it DOES happen, and frequently), but it is not always the case.

                  replyreport
9. 76

   Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

   Have you ever heard of integrity? By the people you support, I'll assume - no.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I would have to say the same thing back to you.  By the people you support, I'll have to assume you have not heard of the concept of integrity.
      
      The Congressional Judicial Oversight Committee is investigating the NY conviction case against President Donald Trump.
      
      It is obvious democrats don't comprehend the concept of integrity.
      
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVOA_EK51lA

      replyreport
10. 76

    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

    They have to deflect. They know their own track record.

    replyreport
11. 76

    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

    Have you ever heard the term "ethical"?

    replyreport
12. 76

    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … rmajority/
    
    "Unelected judges, whatever their ideology, should not be constantly overriding the decisions of members of Congress, the president and federal agencies."

    replyreport
    1. 95

       wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

       Do you then support judges, whether SCOTUS or lower, making law rather than ensuring the law is followed?  Because that's what your link is about; the desire to have SCOTUS fall into place in politics rather than the law.

       replyreport
    2. 95

       Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

       That is the job of the Supreme Curt.
       
       They interpret the Constitution.
       
       The SCOTUS has been ruling and making decisions on laws since it has been in existence starting in 1789.

       replyreport
13. 76

    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

    And no one elected them. They are chosen at the whim of which party controls the White House and the Senate - rarely circumventing the will of the president who 100% selects someone for political reasons.
    
    Selection of nominees should be the purview of the "people's house" the House of Representatives that speaks for the majority of Americans, confirmed by the Senate. Take the politics of a short-term occupant of the White House out of it.
    
    And the population of the US has increased many-fold since it was determined that nine justices represented the people. Look at European countries with much smaller populations and their courts.

    replyreport
    1. 95

       Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

       If you want such a change to the US Constitution, you have quite a journey ahead of you.  That is what it would take.
       
       What does the population have to do with choosing a Supreme Court?

       replyreport
    2. 95

       wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

       Ummm.  The Senate approval is required to sit on the SCOTUS. 
       
       The only change your are suggesting is to go from a partisan President (hopefully one that represents the people) to a hyper partisan House (that does NOT represent the people).  Not sure I follow the reasoning here.
       
       More people does not mean we need more SCOTUS judges; there is only one Constitution now, just as there was then, and their job is to interpret that Constitution.  On the other hand we already have many, many more courtrooms than we did 100 years ago - a necessity as the population and number of crimes increases.

       replyreport
14. 76

    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

    RMN: I can't help you.

    replyreport