The expansion of the SCOTUS

All-In [48963]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 38798

Joined: 12/31/97

Re: Good lord you are a partisan hack...

Sep 22, 2020, 12:57 PM

2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”
2016 [TO MERRICK GARLAND] Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “I wouldn’t vote for me to fill this vacancy, and there’s nobody I like more than me, so it’s not personal.”
2016, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If a Democrat wins in November, and they pick somebody like Judge Garland, it would probably be a good pick, but historically we don’t fill the vacancies this close to an election.”
2016, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.): "I will not consider any Supreme Court nominee until after the country has elected our next president in November and they have taken office in January 2017."
2016, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): "At this critical juncture in our nation's history, Texans and the American people deserve to have a say in the selection of the next lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court."
2016, Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb): "It is crucial for Nebraskans and all Americans to have a voice in the selection of the next person to serve a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, and there is precedent to do so. Therefore, I believe this position should not be filled until the election of a new president."
2016, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL): "This critical decision should be made after the upcoming presidential election so that the American people have a voice."
2016, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss): "The American people should have the opportunity to make their voices heard before filling a lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court."
2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”
2016, Sen. John Thune (R-SD): "Since the next presidential election is already underway, the next president should make this lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.”
2016, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD): "I believe that Justice Scalia’s replacement should be nominated by the next President of the United States.”
2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”
2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “The people deserve to be heard, and they should be allowed to decide through their vote for the next president the type of person who should be on the Supreme Court.”
2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”
2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”
2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”
2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”
2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”
2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”
2016, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa): "We will see what the people say this fall, and our next president, regardless of party, will be making that nomination.”
2016, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah): “They are, of course, free to claim that the Constitution requires, today, the very hearings and floor votes that they denied to Republican nominees in the past. They may say those falsehoods as often as they wish, but they are still false.”
2016, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah): "The Senate has chosen to exercise its power and let the next president fill this vacancy.”
2016, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY): "A president on his way out of the White House should not make a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. The American people will soon decide our next president. That person should get to choose the next Supreme Court nominee. Give the people a voice, and let them chart the course for the court and the country."
2016, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS): "It is not in the Constitution that the Senate must vote."
2016, joint statement by Sen. Jim Inhofe and Sen. James Lankford (R-OK): "A presidential election year is not the right time to start a nomination process for the Supreme Court."
2016, Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska): "The decision to withhold advancement of Mr. Garland’s nomination isn’t about the individual, it’s about the principle. Alaskans, like all Americans, are in the midst of an important national election. The next Supreme Court justice could fundamentally change the direction of the Court for years to come. Alaskans deserve to have a voice in that direction through their vote, and we will ensure that they have one.”
2016, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn): "With the U.S. Supreme Court’s balance at stake, and with a presidential election fewer than eight months away, it is wise to give the American people a more direct voice in the selection and confirmation of the next justice.”
2016, Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT): "The American people have already begun voting on who the next president will be, and their voice should continue to be reflected in a process that will have lasting implications on our nation. The U.S. Senate should exercise its constitutional powers by not confirming a new Supreme Court justice until the American people elect a new president and have their voices heard."
2016, Sen. John Boozman (R-MT): "Our country is very split and we are in the midst of a highly contested presidential election. My colleagues and I are committed to giving the American people a voice in the direction the court will take for generations to come.”
2016, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn): "This debate is not about Judge Garland. It's about whether to give the American people a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice."

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

The federal circuit courts allow anywhere from 6 to 29 judges. Panels of 3 judges are randomly assigned to cases. It would reduce the chances of a swing voter dominating decisions while increasing the random selection of judges which would reduce partisan decisions and extended partisan court swings. The full panel of judges could review any decision of a 3 judge panel, providing consistency.

Plus a larger court could hear more cases and provide for more experienced judges, clerks, and lawyers. A 2014 Reuters investigation found that just 66 lawyers, of whom 63 were white and 58 were men, were six times as likely to get their cases heard than any other lawyers. Half were former Supreme Court clerks.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable discussion to me.

Re: The expansion of the SCOTUS

You are wrong.***

Yep, The Constitution really doesn't do much with

Hypothetical SCOTUS question.

I think yes and yes

It’s already a ridiculous back and forth

Re: It’s already a ridiculous back and forth

No, they aren’t...

Look at the stats bro

Good lord you are a partisan hack...

Re: Good lord you are a partisan hack...

Re: Good lord you are a partisan hack...

LOL you libbies all get your copy pasta from

So just trolling then...

I love the pubs are using this

As usual you are the dim bulb

So Mitch should not do his constitutional duty because

Both would be terrible thing for the country

Lots of benefits to expanding the number of Justices.

Oh stop it***

Nope. Have to agree with Jonathan Turley about expansion

Re: Nope. Have to agree with Jonathan Turley about expansion

Like slavery and women's suffrage, things can be improved.

Re: Like slavery and women's suffrage, things can be improved.

As usual, you have nothing to offer to support your point

LOL you’re a joke

"Hey Bo, It's always been like at."

It is legal, but would have been more believable had...

It's the kind of thing you wish would require

However some may want to spin it, it would be about

So you're OK with Trump nominating everyone on his list...

I'm not against the principle of it...

That is exactly the point.

TigerBoard POTD