Court Packing
- Thread starter subllibrm
- Start date
I'm sure it will soon be a Democrat rallying cry very soon.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 9,116
- Reaction score
- 1,130
- Points
- 113
What advantage (at this point) would it be to the right?
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 6,598
- Reaction score
- 200
- Points
- 63
To beat the left to the punch. If the Democrats were to add six and filled them with progressives they would have a nine to six majority and it would take decades (if ever) for the Republicans to be in the position to get the majority back. This was the nightmare scenario Harris (and Biden) was accused of plotting. So now that the GOP controls both chambers of congress and the White House, they could do the exact same thing and have a 12 - 3 majority. The political version of the golden rule; do unto others before they do it unto you.
Whatever is done by an act of congress can be undone by an act of congress. If you think any institution is sacred to a Dem majority, you've either gone through this decade with your eyes closed, or you're a Republican.
What the GOP needs to do is to begin the process of solidifying a nine-member court in a Constitutional Amendment. They need to strike while the iron's hot, but as is their custom, they will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Are you implying it was a false accusation?
more younger justices since its going to get harder and harder to elect conservative presidents as baby boomers die off and Millennials and Gen Zs make up the electorate. Samuel Alito is 76 and Clarence Thomas is 76. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr served till he was 90.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 6,598
- Reaction score
- 200
- Points
- 63
You are making the same case for SCOTUS seats that I have made regarding abortion. It will never stop being an issue until the constitution is amended. Since both parties find the discord politically valuable there’s no reason for them to change it permanently. Same goes for immigration reform. Too many votes available from harping on the issue to actually do anything about the issue.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 6,598
- Reaction score
- 200
- Points
- 63
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2013
- Messages
- 3,065
- Reaction score
- 1,680
- Points
- 113
i don;t think republicans need to change anything where the supreme court is concerned.......... ..all republcans need to do now is allow the majority of constitutionally minded judges currently on the court to rule on the cases that come before them.... and through that to hopefully correct some of the wrongful actions taken in the past when the court was populated with activisits who saw it as their priviledge... if not their duty... to legislate from the bench.... ...... ...
no packing of the court .. . no new law creating term limits...... just let the court do it;s job - but be certain each jurist nominated to the court in the future.... (as current aging justices retire)...will rule according to the spirit of the constitution and not their own biases.... ... ..had republicans and conservatives in senates of the past done that and paid closer attention to who was being nominated before confirming them - some of the horrendous mistakes and hideous court rulings that have trampled the constitution might have been avoided.... ..and with due diligence on both the presidents and the senates part such mistakes can be avoided in the future....
no packing of the court .. . no new law creating term limits...... just let the court do it;s job - but be certain each jurist nominated to the court in the future.... (as current aging justices retire)...will rule according to the spirit of the constitution and not their own biases.... ... ..had republicans and conservatives in senates of the past done that and paid closer attention to who was being nominated before confirming them - some of the horrendous mistakes and hideous court rulings that have trampled the constitution might have been avoided.... ..and with due diligence on both the presidents and the senates part such mistakes can be avoided in the future....
Last edited:
I think that during Trump's 4 year term, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito should retire. I would miss the excellent opinions by Thomas and Alito, but they will age-out, potentially when the Socialist democrats retake the office.
Let's built a young, brilliant and constitutionally-minded court.
Let's built a young, brilliant and constitutionally-minded court.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2012
- Messages
- 1,187
- Reaction score
- 134
- Points
- 63
I agree with the poster who said there needs to be a constitutional amendment setting the number of Supreme Court Justices at nine. It needs to be President and congress proof.
The Constitution is not a code of law. A Constitutional amendment banning abortion would be as out of place as and amendment banning theft, and would go the way of Prohibition.
The Constitution is an enumeration of powers. It's about the structure and scope of the Federal Government. It's about what the Federal Government can and cannot do, not about what the people can and cannot do.
An admentment concerning the structure and scope of the Judicial Branch is purely within the nature and scope of the Constitution. An amendment about anything else would be an aberration.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 6,598
- Reaction score
- 200
- Points
- 63
The amendment would not be to ban abortion. It would be to define what constitutes a “person” with all of the inalienable rights recognized by the Constitution. At that point the laws that apply to the death of a person take effect.
Again, it's an enumeration of powers, not a code of law. It's not even a 'bill of rights,' the first 10 amendments notwithstanding.
It doesn't describe a person, or a citizen. That's
not it's point!It is an enumeration, or list, of powers.
Powers. Not rights or statutes.
Powers.
Last edited: