3
3
0
Democrats are suggesting changes to the Supreme Court including adding judges and using term limits.
Democrats, specifically progressives, are short sighted when it comes to ideas about how to achieve their goals. In this case, there is a growing demand to change the make up of the Supreme Court in order to have a liberal majority.
If this is such a good and legal idea, why shouldn't Trump be allowed to do the same thing now?
Democrats, specifically progressives, are short sighted when it comes to ideas about how to achieve their goals. In this case, there is a growing demand to change the make up of the Supreme Court in order to have a liberal majority.
If this is such a good and legal idea, why shouldn't Trump be allowed to do the same thing now?
ar-BBUUjFm
Posted from msn.com
Democrats
Republicans
Supreme Court
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 4
2
2
0
And like all their other changes, if we allowed it, it would come back to bite them. Whoever isn't in charge wants it their way
(2)
(0)
SPC Erich Guenther
It's pretty humorous in my view how some are all worked up on the issue. We have not had a stacked Supreme Court that turned into an idealogical runaway since Presidential Term Limits. So where is there proof that would happen in the future?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Fixing the confirmation rules would be too easy. Instead we have to reorg an entire branch of government. Sound familiar? Lets not just insure the uninsured, lets screw everything up and force everyone onto a totally new system of heath care that fits better with our idealogy. Lets not stick with Capitalism, lets chuck it completely and try to make Socialism work, Lets chuck the Electoral College, then change the voting age............and on and on. Hey wait a minute...........how is this making my life easier? It's not it is making the politicians life easier and expanding their power. So it gets back down to are we servants to the politicians or are they public servants to us? Clearly the Democrats want the electorate to serve them.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I am against this because of the reason is so stupid. They want to change the process to make it more difficult to stack the Supreme Court so that appointment of Supreme Court Justices is not so partisan. That has to be one of the dumbest reasons on the face of the Earth because in all it's history I don't think we have seen a "stacked" Supreme court. It's all political party paranoia driving the fear that it will happen that nobody is paying attention it never has happened. The Presidential Term Limit as well as the staggering of ages of Supreme Court Nominees has kept the Court relatively balanced for decades. Anytime it was in danger of getting "stacked" the electorate usually switches political parties in power and the fear goes away. A far better solution here would be both political parties drop their paranoia and agree on better ground rules on how to review Supreme Court Justice nominations without the process becomming a circus or public spectacle.
(0)
(0)
SPC Erich Guenther
SFC Casey O'Mally - Washington and FDR did not fall under Presidential term limits which I said helped prevent stacking of the court. We have no idea when someone is going to die even though RBG has been placed as the next likely. Anyone of them could die of a stroke tommorrow. Regardless, the whole premise of the argument is false. Adding more justices does not reduce the politics of each appointment as we see at the Federal Judge appointment review process level. Politics still there and in some cases still just as intense. If you want to change the politics then change the rules of confirmation to be more apolitical. Adding more justices to the court is going to muddle their decisions more and make the court less relevant........which I suspect is the ultimate motive here. Nine justices are just fine.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
MSG (Join to see) simple. President appoints Justices with the advice and consent of Senate. Senate refused to advise or even discuss consent. They intentionally failed, nay refused, to do their Constitutional duty.
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
SFC Casey O'Mally - Agreed. In the article above, Democrats complain about the Supreme Court is dominated by Conservatives (now, they weren't concerned when it was dominated by liberals) and wants to make it predominantly liberal by expanding the number of judges under a Democrat President. Their complaint of too many partisan judges isn't a problem to them when they run to the 9th and DC Circuit to file lawsuits.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
SPC Erich Guenther I think you are misunderstanding what is going on here. This isn't about trying to make the court apolitical. It is about trying to stack the court. If they expand the court to (for instance) 15 Justices, giving them (presumably the next President will be a Democrat in their plan) the opportunity to instantly appoint 6 new justices this gives them the opportunity to stack the court in their favor. That's what this is about.
Washington and FDR were given as examples when the court had previously been stacked, as a counterpoint to your assertion that this had never happened.
Finally, I used FDR for a reason. His intention was to do exactly this right here - expand the court so he could appoint a bunch of justices because the court when he took over was too conservative and disagreed with FDR on the Constitutionality of his federal power grab in the New Deal. He ended up not having to do that, because he was able to just appoint most of the justices as they all died or retired. This is not a new play, it has been in the Democratic playbook for a LONG time.
Washington and FDR were given as examples when the court had previously been stacked, as a counterpoint to your assertion that this had never happened.
Finally, I used FDR for a reason. His intention was to do exactly this right here - expand the court so he could appoint a bunch of justices because the court when he took over was too conservative and disagreed with FDR on the Constitutionality of his federal power grab in the New Deal. He ended up not having to do that, because he was able to just appoint most of the justices as they all died or retired. This is not a new play, it has been in the Democratic playbook for a LONG time.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google