Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
Why are repubs against the idea of court packing?
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 58
| visibility 1

Why are repubs against the idea of court packing?


Oct 14, 2020, 2:55 PM

Serious question.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Not a Republican, but I am against the idea of court packing


Oct 14, 2020, 2:56 PM

in order to cause an ideological swing. And it's apparent that's the motive of the ones suggesting it. If there were some way to add justices in a non-partisan way, I wouldn't necessarily be against that. More justices is not a bad thing on principle.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Not a Republican, but I am against the idea of court packing


Oct 14, 2020, 3:02 PM

Wasn't the holdup of the Garland nomination and the rush of ACB nomination done to cause an ideological swing?

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

this is what I thought***


Oct 14, 2020, 3:03 PM



2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-franc1968.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


That's not court packing.


Oct 14, 2020, 3:07 PM [ in reply to Re: Not a Republican, but I am against the idea of court packing ]

When I talk about "court packing," I'm talking about adding justices, to increase the number from 9.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: That's not court packing.


Oct 14, 2020, 3:13 PM

You're tap dancing. You know what my point is exactly. Why is court packing bad, but the Garland/ACB shenanigans is acceptable?

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I'm tap dancing? I directly and respectfully answered your


Oct 14, 2020, 3:18 PM

question in a specific way.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

He’s redefining court packing...


Oct 14, 2020, 3:35 PM

and you’re tap dancing.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-franc1968.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Would connecting # of justices to # of circuit courts work?


Oct 14, 2020, 3:19 PM [ in reply to Not a Republican, but I am against the idea of court packing ]

There is clear historic precdent for it and it would make the court pretty equal in ideological belief. It would mean there would be 13 justices, btw.

The republicans are clearly going to force the issue on this so I can see it happening when/if Biden wins and when/if the Dems take Congress. I don't want a Supreme court that is heavily one-sided which it will be after Barrett is confirmed (giving the the bench a 6-3 heavy conservative bias) so it almost has to be done.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Would connecting # of justices to # of circuit courts work?


Oct 14, 2020, 3:23 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Would connecting # of justices to # of circuit courts work?


Oct 14, 2020, 3:26 PM

Lol. Republicans held the court to a different number when it was convenient for them just 4 years ago.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Would connecting # of justices to # of circuit courts work?


Oct 14, 2020, 3:30 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Shouldn’t we actually see how the rule on cases


Oct 14, 2020, 3:28 PM [ in reply to Would connecting # of justices to # of circuit courts work? ]

before we worry about the 6-3 conservative slant?

I always think of it in terms of strict or loose interpretation of the Constitution. Conservatives tend to favor the former, but it can help liberals as well I would think.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

null


Pubs wouldn't have put her up for nomination


Oct 14, 2020, 3:43 PM

and be trying to rush her through before they potentially lose the control of Congress and Executive if they didn't already know how she would rule on certain cases. This is all politics, and that's their move, and the dems have this counter-move available to them (with precedent) if they wish to equalize things when they take over.

I think tying the number of justices to the number of circuit courts gives a clear basis and historic precedent for number of judges and doesn't allow for further packing without first increasing the number of circuit courts. I can see an argument against saying that it only solves the current ideological biases of the court not future ones and that's a fair argument.

Ideally, I'd want the pubs not to push Barrett through as the election has already started and if Biden were to win and place a justice it still gives the Supreme Court a conservative majority. They are starting a real mess by not being happy with the small conservative majority in the Supreme Court.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

There is a precedent of packing the SCOTUS by increasing


Oct 14, 2020, 3:51 PM

the number of seats? Not since 1869.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"know how she would rule on certain cases...."


Oct 14, 2020, 4:03 PM [ in reply to Pubs wouldn't have put her up for nomination ]

Because that worked well with Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Would connecting # of justices to # of circuit courts work?


Oct 14, 2020, 4:17 PM [ in reply to Would connecting # of justices to # of circuit courts work? ]

not even on the court, calls her bias

lefties concerned about judicial activism, suddenly



lololololol

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

answering your question depends on what YOU mean...


Oct 14, 2020, 2:57 PM

by court packing.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-franc1968.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


For me, it sets a dangerous precedent when one...


Oct 14, 2020, 3:00 PM

side doesn't get their way on an existing seat. Everytime the majority party in the Senate matched that of the WH, we would add 3 seats to the court.

The court system, and the SCOTUS specifically, is meant to be stable and static. Also, I'm not a lawyer or have much more than an outsider's view of the operations of the SCOTUS, but I would think things would start to get pretty complicated with many more justices on the bench. How long would a hearing take if there were 15 vs 9 justices.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: For me, it sets a dangerous precedent when one...


Oct 14, 2020, 3:04 PM

Who started with the dangerous present on filling SCOTUS seats?

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

George Washington?***


Oct 14, 2020, 3:12 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

If she's a hollerer, she'll be a screamer.
If she's a screamer, she'll get you arrested.


^^^originalist^^^***


Oct 14, 2020, 3:13 PM



2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-franc1968.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: For me, it sets a dangerous precedent when one...


Oct 14, 2020, 3:13 PM [ in reply to Re: For me, it sets a dangerous precedent when one... ]



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

oh, it was a "trap"***


Oct 14, 2020, 3:13 PM



2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-franc1968.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: For me, it sets a dangerous precedent when one...


Oct 14, 2020, 3:29 PM [ in reply to Re: For me, it sets a dangerous precedent when one... ]

Puhleese dude. For Garland, we were told that the seat needed to held because it was an election year and "the people should decide" . 4 years later and 2 months prior to an election, we must rush this through immediately. What happened to "let the people decide?" I'll wait for your rationalization on how republucan outrage over court packing is anything but pearl clutching.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

So are you satisfied with the answer...


Oct 14, 2020, 3:32 PM

You gave your question?

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-franc1968.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


I thought you were asking a serious question....


Oct 14, 2020, 3:51 PM [ in reply to Re: For me, it sets a dangerous precedent when one... ]

you seem to be asking this only in the context of a political response.

As an FYI, I think it was wrong to have not given Garland a hearing. Politically, I like who went instead of him, but it wasn't right for the Senate not to have taken up the nomination. And it is certainly hypocritical to do mental gymnastics to justify flipping positions on this nomination process.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

It turns our highest court into a kanagroo court system.


Oct 14, 2020, 3:17 PM

If the reigning party in power doesn't like the ruling of the SCOTUS, what's to keep them from just adding more judges that are more likely to vote along a party line?

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: It turns our highest court into a kanagroo court system.


Oct 14, 2020, 3:31 PM

It's called fighting back. The dems would be spineless if they don't hold Mitch accountable.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Accountable..to what?


Oct 14, 2020, 3:33 PM

Filling existing SCOTUS seats?

RBG was dying for 20 years. She should have been counseled to step down during the Obama years and he would have had his own replacement.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Why are repubs against the idea of court packing?


Oct 14, 2020, 3:23 PM

They're against it, because this is the moment they've waited a generation for and it's about to be ripped from them. But McConnell and his party must be forced to lie in the bed which they made.

McConnell's attempts to change the system to benefit him will now shoot him in the foot. Dems need to get rid of the filibuster and then add 4 seats.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Why are repubs against the idea of court packing?


Oct 14, 2020, 3:27 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Why are repubs against the idea of court packing?


Oct 14, 2020, 3:28 PM

You guys made the bed. Lay down and like it.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I wish I cared enough to book mark this.


Oct 14, 2020, 3:31 PM

But you probably won't be here in 4 years, so its pointless.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I wish I cared enough to book mark this.


Oct 14, 2020, 3:36 PM

I've been a member for 8 years, so where would I go in the next four? Is this supposed to be a threat?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

If Republicans win in 4 years, and they grow the court even larger to


Oct 14, 2020, 3:37 PM

fill more vacant seats with their own pick, I doubt you'd want to honestly discuss that post.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: If Republicans win in 4 years, and they grow the court even larger to


Oct 14, 2020, 3:46 PM

And then you would be all for that, because it would be fighting back, which is where the dems are right now.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

No I wouldn't necessarily be for that.


Oct 14, 2020, 3:52 PM

Because I'm not an idiot.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: No I wouldn't necessarily be for that.


Oct 14, 2020, 3:54 PM

Hahahahahahahaha

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Simply, there's no need for a change.


Oct 14, 2020, 3:59 PM

The reasonable person realizes that ideological power, at least in the US, ebbs and flows.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Simply, there's no need for a change.


Oct 14, 2020, 4:03 PM

It's supposed to. But McConnell decided a president who won election by wise margins twice didn't get appoint judges or justices. So it's time to reverse what was wrongly done.

I'm glad you agree. Because I know an intellectual like you wouldn't change your position simply because of which side you're on.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I'm not on a "side."


Oct 14, 2020, 4:05 PM

Unless economic conservatism is a "side". You obviously don't know me at all.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Why are repubs against the idea of court packing?


Oct 14, 2020, 3:34 PM [ in reply to Re: Why are repubs against the idea of court packing? ]



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Why are repubs against the idea of court packing?


Oct 14, 2020, 3:44 PM

Lol!

I hope the useless party of pigs is crushed. I want Trump supporters to realize that they live in the past and have no hope for their terrorism to ever take over this country. They took a torch to democracy and it's time to pay.

Unlike your useless party, though, I don't hope for violence. I want Trump's worthless supporters to wake up every morning in America knowing that minorities are being born faster than them. That trans people have rights. That a gay person could become their new boss. And I hope it hurts.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Why are repubs against the idea of court packing?


Oct 14, 2020, 3:54 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Why are repubs against the idea of court packing?


Oct 14, 2020, 3:33 PM [ in reply to Re: Why are repubs against the idea of court packing? ]

Sounds like the pubs should have thought of this before they played politics with SCOTUS nominations.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

screw 151 years; just change our court systems to how your


Oct 14, 2020, 3:38 PM

team wants it? Is that what you are saying?

Again, I don't think this kind of post ages well.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: screw 151 years; just change our court systems to how your


Oct 14, 2020, 3:40 PM

That's exactly what the GOP did. They set the precedent. They held the court to 8 seats when it worked for them and they held hundreds of federal court seats open for years.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

huh?


Oct 14, 2020, 3:57 PM

The last change of the court:

"....1869, when a new Judiciary Act sponsored by Senator Lyman Trumbull set the number back to nine Justices, with six Justices required at a sitting to form a quorum. President Ulysses S. Grant eventually signed that legislation and nominated William Strong and Joseph Bradley to the newly restored seats."

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-does-the-supreme-court-have-nine-justices

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I prefer the Jonathan Turley Republican Court Expansion Plan


Oct 14, 2020, 4:01 PM [ in reply to Re: Why are repubs against the idea of court packing? ]

expand to 19 justices, 2 per presidential term from the current 9.


https://buckleybeacon.com/2017/11/16/jonathan-turley-on-expanding-the-supreme-court/


2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Why are repubs against the idea of court packing?


Oct 14, 2020, 3:41 PM

The main reason is it has been @ 9 for well over 100 yrs. If you start packing it then the next Admin. will do the same until its another congress. That is not what the framers of the constitution had in mind. They had one. Plus you Dems were using it to pass laws because the congress is useless now. Either way it will not end well.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Why are repubs against the idea of court packing?


Oct 14, 2020, 3:48 PM

Wrong. It was 8 for almost all of 2016. How could you forget that?

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Why are repubs against the idea of court packing?


Oct 14, 2020, 4:20 PM

The Pubs are not against court-packing at all. They're doing it right now with Barrett. What they're against is Democratic court-packing.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Why are repubs against the idea of court packing?


Oct 14, 2020, 4:22 PM

filling an open position is not packing

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Why are repubs against the idea of court packing?


Oct 14, 2020, 6:03 PM


filling an open position is not packing




Go ask Merritt Garland how he feels about your theory.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


It would be a partisan move based on ideology just like


Oct 14, 2020, 4:28 PM

holding up Garland and rushing through ACB.

Still, I don’t like the precedent it sets. We could end up with 29 Judges one day.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-jospehg.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: It would be a partisan move based on ideology just like


Oct 14, 2020, 4:41 PM

If done over time, and not as retribution, it could be a great idea.

https://time.com/5338689/supreme-court-packing/

2024 purple level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Why are repubs against the idea of court packing?


Oct 14, 2020, 5:37 PM

This thread has gone as I had expected it to. Repubs are ok with dirty politics as long as they are the ones doing it, but clutch those pearls when the other side responds.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Why are repubs against the idea of court packing?


Oct 14, 2020, 9:43 PM



2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-franc1968.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Replies: 58
| visibility 1
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic