WELCOME TO RIVER DAVES PLACE

Time to Pack the Supreme Court?

SNiC Jet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
8,709
Reaction score
26,347
It is a big list.

“When the White House released the list of commission members on Friday, it swiftly won praise — from members of the conservative Federalist Society. Evan Bernick, a right-libertarian law professor at Georgetown, praised the commission as a “powerhouse lineup of scholars.” Stephen Sachs, a Duke Law professor who won the Federalist Society’s Joseph Story Award in 2020, called the commission “an astonishingly well-balanced list.”

Why "all of a sudden" the need for change? What is the problem with 9 members?
^^^^^^^^Rhetorical questions....we all know the answer.....and so do you.
 
Last edited:

squeezer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
5,900
Reaction score
2,796
Why "all of a sudden" the need for change? What is the problem with 9 members?
^^^^^^^^Rhetorical questions....we all know the answer.....and so do you.


All of a sudden... ????

5
5
6
7
9
10
7
9

The above is the number of SCOTUS seats over the years. It has changed both up and down in response to the number of Circuit Courts and as a political tool to limit/expand power of the executive.

The "Need" for change is a function of political calculus that has yet to be derived.
 

Carlson-jet

Not Giving A Fuck Is An Art
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
7,785
Reaction score
7,947
All of a sudden... ????

5
5
6
7
9
10
7
9

The above is the number of SCOTUS seats over the years. It has changed both up and down in response to the number of Circuit Courts and as a political tool to limit/expand power of the executive.

The "Need" for change is a function of political calculus that has yet to be derived.
Any new news since 1869. Is that where you still get your news from?
 

snowhammer

Exploratory Vacation Time
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
5,514
All of a sudden... ????

5
5
6
7
9
10
7
9

The above is the number of SCOTUS seats over the years. It has changed both up and down in response to the number of Circuit Courts and as a political tool to limit/expand power of the executive.

The "Need" for change is a function of political calculus that has yet to be derived.
Average of 7.25. No more than ten. Got it. 👍
 

squeezer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
5,900
Reaction score
2,796
Any new news since 1869. Is that where you still get your news from?


The Bill or Rights was ratified in 1789... Do you really want to put a time component on what we do with the Constitution?
 

Carlson-jet

Not Giving A Fuck Is An Art
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
7,785
Reaction score
7,947
The Bill or Rights was ratified in 1789... Do you really want to put a time component on what we do with the Constitution?
Just pointing out your plans. You can take your "we" and extrapolate. I'm not with you.
 

squeezer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
5,900
Reaction score
2,796
Just pointing out your plans. You can take your "we" and extrapolate. I'm not with you.


Like it or not this is a “We” issue...

You can thank Moscow Mitch for wiping his ass with accepted SCOTUS protocols. He used every legal channel to deny Garland a seat and replace RBJ.

Adjusting the number of SCOTUS Justices is absolutely legal and the most direct response to Mitches actions.

I don’t like it at all as it has massive implications to the entire Judiciary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rye

regor

Tormenting libturds
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
40,142
Reaction score
124,202
Like it or not this is a “We” issue...

You can thank Moscow Mitch for wiping his ass with accepted SCOTUS protocols. He used every legal channel to deny Garland a seat and replace RBJ.

Adjusting the number of SCOTUS Justices is absolutely legal and the most direct response to Mitches actions.

I don’t like it at all as it has massive implications to the entire Judiciary.

Sore losers are always spoiled little bitches who have to change the rules. 😂
 

Carlson-jet

Not Giving A Fuck Is An Art
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
7,785
Reaction score
7,947
Like it or not this is a “We” issue...

You can thank Moscow Mitch for wiping his ass with accepted SCOTUS protocols. He used every legal channel to deny Garland a seat and replace RBJ.

Adjusting the number of SCOTUS Justices is absolutely legal and the most direct response to Mitches actions.

I don’t like it at all as it has massive implications to the entire Judiciary.
So you don't like it but defend and support it?
Take a look at what the House had set forth from 2016 until this moment. The party of dims are a ship without a sail and set adrift by a tiny minority the MSM props up. Huffing a puffing into ones own lack of sails is the best way I can describe the situation.
 

was thatguy

living in a cage of fear
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
51,526
Reaction score
95,356
Like it or not this is a “We” issue...

You can thank Moscow Mitch for wiping his ass with accepted SCOTUS protocols. He used every legal channel to deny Garland a seat and replace RBJ.

Adjusting the number of SCOTUS Justices is absolutely legal and the most direct response to Mitches actions.

I don’t like it at all as it has massive implications to the entire Judiciary.

Speak of the devil.
Guy votes for a child molester then presumes to preach about legalities.
 

Reddy Too

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
359
Reaction score
444
All of a sudden... ????

5
5
6
7
9
10
7
9

The above is the number of SCOTUS seats over the years. It has changed both up and down in response to the number of Circuit Courts and as a political tool to limit/expand power of the executive.

The "Need" for change is a function of political calculus that has yet to be derived.

Or integrated. But you knew that.
 

SNiC Jet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
8,709
Reaction score
26,347
and as a political tool to limit/expand power of the executive.

and there ^^^^^ in-lies the problem.......by Constitution designed there is to be 3 SEPARATE Branches of Government. Not 1 taking control/advantage of the other. But I do accept the fact as you just clearly demonstrated that that the Constitution is mute to a Liberal, and I do appreciate you being straight forward by admitting the SC is being packed as a "political tool" to accommodate Sleepy Joe's agenda.


The "Need" for change is a function of political calculus that has yet to be derived.

According to who?
 
Last edited:

Christopher Lucero

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2018
Messages
1,590
Reaction score
1,080
Yea those election concerns need to stop because Sec. of States and Governors should be able to change election laws in blatant disregard of their State Constitution. And if State courts packed with the offending party say it’s all good, by golly that’s just the way it is!!!

Really Chris? 😂
I am disappointed that the executive branch and the centralization of executive power is becoming too regal. I feel it is the basis for the founding of this country to negate regency and establish democratic power, and yet both parties keep doing all they can to reestablish and achieve regal power in the executive because of their own capability to execute plans through the executive, since congress is stalemated. none of us are winning under that operation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rye

SNiC Jet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
8,709
Reaction score
26,347
.....since congress is stalemated. none of us are winning under that operation.

When the congress is "stalemated", they are to work hard and resolve their differences and seek solutions...this is by design......if they can not resolve the situation, nothing should change..........we should never change or modify the "system" to one party's advantage....and that is EXACTLY what is going on here.

The preferred and best way to overcome the "stalemate" is to change the "players" via honest elections. Slow process, but best for ALL concerned.
 

was thatguy

living in a cage of fear
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
51,526
Reaction score
95,356
I am disappointed here as well since the polarization is increasing, leading to less middle ground for negotiation, greater probability for stalemate, less action, more heat. nobody wins. (well, MAYBE the enemies of democracy win.)

By design, no less.
Ive ALWAYS been a believer in compromise and middle ground...always.

But over the last 12 years (and being accelerated today) there seems to be no middle ground left.
Ive been pigeonholed as a far right extremist not due to a change in my beliefs or views, but rather by the almost incomprehensible shifting of this Country’s political paradigm.
The scale has been moved beneath our motionless feet, our static day to day.
One only has to look at the social and media happenings since 2008.
It started with Trayvon, accelerated with the beer summit debacle, Ferguson, and now is full steam ahead into the most outlandish virtue signaling requirements to avoid cancellation.
Insanity has taken over. There is no more debate or political avenues left that are not compromised. We can bitch about it (and we do) but the truth is that our republic is at its end AS WE KNOW IT.
This is fact, not fatalistic rhetoric.
You are certainly correct about our vulnerability though.
This Nation is divided completely. There is no reasoning left to be done. You can not reason with a brainwashed robotic entity.
Im called racist, extremist, Trumpkin, etc by people that seemingly completely ignore and deny what is happening right in front of our faces.
I don’t give a shit what your political leanings are, defending these actions we see happening right now is lunacy, if not outright traitorous.
How the hell am I the “bad guy” and the animals burning shit down, canceling anyone that doesn’t bow to their demands, and strong arming business and society as a whole are the good guys?
 

squeezer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
5,900
Reaction score
2,796


and there ^^^^^ in-lies the problem.......by Constitution designed there is to be 3 SEPARATE Branches of Government. Not 1 taking control/advantage of the other. But I do accept the fact as you just clearly demonstrated that that the Constitution is mute to a Liberal, and I do appreciate you being straight forward by admitting the SC is being packed as a "political tool" to accommodate Sleepy Joe's agenda.

If wishing made it so... Mitches key objective when leading the Senate was to pack the courts. He sat on every nominee Obama made that he could and pushed through all of Trumps. Trump apointed close to the same number of judges in four years as obama did in eight. This was not an accident. All perfectly legal under the constitution. (The same way expanding the SCOTUS will be legal if thats the direction the D's choose to go. ) I don't like it but there are a lot of things I don't like that are necessary.


According to who?

At this point I would say Democratic strategists that none of us have ever heard of. My guess is that nothing happens until after the midterms. With a whole lot of noise being made on both sides of the issue leading up to 2022. "We are carefully looking at all our options" satifies the far left that thinks it should be slammed through and also gives some room to build a political buffer zone for the D's running in areas who would reject it flat out.
 

SNiC Jet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
8,709
Reaction score
26,347
and there ^^^^^ in-lies the problem.......by Constitution designed there is to be 3 SEPARATE Branches of Government. Not 1 taking control/advantage of the other. But I do accept the fact as you just clearly demonstrated that that the Constitution is mute to a Liberal, and I do appreciate you being straight forward by admitting the SC is being packed as a "political tool" to accommodate Sleepy Joe's agenda.

If wishing made it so... Mitches key objective when leading the Senate was to pack the courts. He sat on every nominee Obama made that he could and pushed through all of Trumps. Trump apointed close to the same number of judges in four years as obama did in eight. This was not an accident. All perfectly legal under the constitution. (The same way expanding the SCOTUS will be legal if thats the direction the D's choose to go. ) I don't like it but there are a lot of things I don't like that are necessary.

According to who?

At this point I would say Democratic strategists that none of us have ever heard of. My guess is that nothing happens until after the midterms. With a whole lot of noise being made on both sides of the issue leading up to 2022. "We are carefully looking at all our options" satifies the far left that thinks it should be slammed through and also gives some room to build a political buffer zone for the D's running in areas who would reject it flat out.

Comparing Mitch's actions is not my definition of "packing the court"....... and his tactics have been the SOP for over a century........but I see your point....... however I stand firm in my position that attempting to "add seats" at this time is a ruthless power grab......... as FDR attempted the same to accelerate his "New Deal" ....... we shall see.
 
Last edited:

Christopher Lucero

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2018
Messages
1,590
Reaction score
1,080
How the hell am I the “bad guy”
You are not a bad guy. You went astray when you began to believe what someone else evaluates you to be. FWIW: NEVER let ANYONE tell you who you are. You give up your power to them that way.

BUT, if you embrace the 'bad guy'...It reminds me of this clip from "Wreck It Ralph", a kids movie that my grandson loved when he was very young. In the end, Ralph closes the film by saying "I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me. Because if that little kid likes me, how bad can I be?"
You_Are_Bad_Guy.jpg



In order for any of us to achieve the middle negotiable ground, we have to stand there, though. So, it does mean taking some flack from some 'extremist' of either stripe. You just have to let it pass, not let it get to you.

I've been trying to apply this 'middle management' (pun intended) position in all media where I participate. I attempt to make a reasonable case that is acceptable to the audience on middle ground, and hope some will come along.

Some are staunchly polarized, and with them I ask questions to try arrive at an understanding of their position, such as yours.

I am glad you have let me know your feeling and your predicament. It has enriched both of us. I choose to keep mum about anyplace where I might show direct disagreement because that is fuel for the dissonance, so better to let the bad feeling pass and to keep communication open. we may be friendly or even become friends that way.
 
Last edited:

was thatguy

living in a cage of fear
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
51,526
Reaction score
95,356
You are not a bad guy. You went astray when you began to believe what someone else evaluates you to be. FWIW: NEVER let ANYONE tell you who you are. You give up your power to them that way.

BUT, if you embrace the 'bad guy'...It reminds me of this clip from "Wreck It Ralph", a kids movie that my grandson loved when he was very young. In the end, Ralph closes the film by saying "I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me. Because if that little kid likes me, how bad can I be?"
View attachment 991352


In order for any of us to achieve the middle negotiable ground, we have to stand there, though. So, it does mean taking some flack from some 'extremist' of either stripe. You just have to let it pass, not let it get to you.

I've been trying to apply this 'middle management' (pun intended) position in all media where I participate. I attempt to make a reasonable case that is acceptable to the audience on middle ground, and hope some will come along.

Some are staunchly polarized, and with them I ask questions to try arrive at an understanding of their position, such as yours.

I am glad you have let me know your feeling and your predicament. It has enriched both of us. I choose to keep mum about anyplace where I might show direct disagreement because that is fuel for the dissonance, so better to let the bad feeling pass and to keep communication open. we may be friendly or even become friends that way.

It’s a nice thought, but at 60 years old I’m done with tolerance and understanding.
I’ll be EVERYTHING they want me to be and I’ll remind them that it is of their fashioning.
They want it? Mother fuckers here it is.
 

Christopher Lucero

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2018
Messages
1,590
Reaction score
1,080
It’s a nice thought, but at 60 years old I’m done with tolerance and understanding.
I’ll be EVERYTHING they want me to be and I’ll remind them that it is of their fashioning.
They want it? Mother fuckers here it is.
That's cool. glad I understand you better. 'They' can go f-off as far as I am concerned. 'They' will have to learn how to deal with it.
 

was thatguy

living in a cage of fear
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
51,526
Reaction score
95,356
That's cool. glad I understand you better. 'They' can go f-off as far as I am concerned. 'They' will have to learn how to deal with it.

Do not for an instant believe I have “gone astray” and have judged myself and “surrendered” due to the idiots that presume to know who and what I am.
I have not thrown in the towel and said “fuck it, let’s do battle bitches”.
It’s not that I’m unwilling to debate and argue for process of our system...it’s more that “they” have completely wiped their asses with MY Constitution, “they” have made a mockery of any and all judicial process, and “they” fully intend to rule over subjects rather than answer to citizens.
There is no recourse by vote. “They” proved that in November and NOTHING has been done to correct it.
hey, I’ve been on the losing side more than once. It’s exactly how this Nation makes ruder corrections as we steer along under way. Right/ left etc as we hold true.
That’s all gone now.
But like the proverbial frog in a pot of heating, water we can’t even seem to accept that it’s under way.
Our Constitution is NOT a suicide pact.
it’s not up for discussion as long as we choose to follow it.
If we choose not to follow it, or worse, allow its demise or bastardization then we must admit that our Republic is over. There is no in between.
Its time to either fight for the continuation of our Republic (which will inevitably collapse one day...but I did not think it would be in my lifetime) or embrace the socialism and surrender. I choose not to surrender. My life has deposited me in a position with very little responsibilities outside of my own well being...which isn’t a great concern for me.
In other words it’s easier for me.
I don’t have a business or portfolio or properties or mouths to feed.


Ive read your posts and am in awe of your intelligence and knowledge!
 

Christopher Lucero

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2018
Messages
1,590
Reaction score
1,080
My life has deposited me in a position with very little responsibilities outside of my own well being...which isn’t a great concern for me.
In other words it’s easier for me.
well, that is more than anyone can ask for. In the end, that is really all that anyone has anyway. I hope 'they' will not burden your soul too much...now that I am old I truly realize how strangely short life really is...I swear my 10 and 8 and 20 and 15 year old memories are fresh, but I am very very very far from those moments.
 

HST4ME

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
6,579
Reaction score
14,654
Time to practice up the firing squads is what it is time for.
 

HotRod82

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,937
Reaction score
7,135
It is just more virtue signaling and useless platitudes. They don’t have the support of 60 senators to make it happen.

Hate to break it to you LOF....Kavanaugh and Barrett were BOTH voted in 50-48. The Dims only need a simple majority, which they currently have. I think Manchin holding out is our only hope.
 

LargeOrangeFont

We aren't happy until you aren't happy
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
49,690
Reaction score
76,151
Hate to break it to you LOF....Kavanaugh and Barrett were BOTH voted in 50-48. The Dims only need a simple majority, which they currently have. I think Manchin holding out is our only hope.

There is no filibustering a SC nominee, it is a straight minority vote. The SC judge count is a procedural change subject to filibuster which would then need 60 votes. They have to change the judge count, and then they could vote in new SC nominees on a simple majority.
 

HotRod82

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,937
Reaction score
7,135
There is no filibustering a SC nominee, it is a straight minority vote. The SC judge count is a procedural change subject to filibuster which would then need 60 votes. They have to change the judge count, and then they could vote in new SC nominees on a simple majority.

I look for the dims to pull a midnight saturday holiday procedural vote when everyone has left town. There will be no one in town to filibuster. The left is going for it, the total transformation of our beloved country. I hope you are right, I really do, but the left is going for broke and has no intention of playing by the rules.
 

LargeOrangeFont

We aren't happy until you aren't happy
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
49,690
Reaction score
76,151
I look for the dims to pull a midnight saturday holiday procedural vote when everyone has left town. There will be no one in town to filibuster. The left is going for it, the total transformation of our beloved country. I hope you are right, I really do, but the left is going for broke and has no intention of playing by the rules.

I’m looking at it the other way.. it is just political pandering, just like the green new deal was.

Doing this before the removal of the filibuster goes nowhere. They need that out of the way first.
 

wet hull

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
1,847
Reaction score
2,573
Question. If this goes through and 4 are appointed. In 2 years when we the Republicans take back control. What options do we have in regards to the 4 new judges? Can we vote them out? Eliminate those 4 seats or do they need to die off as its a life long appointment?
 

HotRod82

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,937
Reaction score
7,135
I’m looking at it the other way.. it is just political pandering, just like the green new deal was.

Doing this before the removal of the filibuster goes nowhere. They need that out of the way first.

The green new deal is going to become reality in Biden's "infrastructure" plan.......far from political pandering.
 

LargeOrangeFont

We aren't happy until you aren't happy
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
49,690
Reaction score
76,151
The green new deal is going to become reality in Biden's "infrastructure" plan.......far from political pandering.

Ideas from it, sure. But it was never a piece of legitimate legislation. I don’t see planes being grounded or cars being banned from cities, in the infrastructure plan.
 

RodnJen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
10,643
Reaction score
6,044
Question. If this goes through and 4 are appointed. In 2 years when we the Republicans take back control. What options do we have in regards to the 4 new judges? Can we vote them out? Eliminate those 4 seats or do they need to die off as its a life long appointment?

Lifelong appointment.
 

Christopher Lucero

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2018
Messages
1,590
Reaction score
1,080
Question. If this goes through and 4 are appointed. In 2 years when we the Republicans take back control. What options do we have in regards to the 4 new judges? Can we vote them out? Eliminate those 4 seats or do they need to die off as its a life long appointment?
those are some valuable insights. The positions are appointments for life, so - no - you can't vote them out. But, eliminating the seats would be a process of negation upon each death. honestly, tinkering with the level is just trolling at the highest level of govenrment...they know it will piss off the republicans, so - onward. OTOH, when Biden recently announced US pulling out of Afghanistan, roughly continuing Trump's legacy, there was republican outrage...so this giant pissing match is a charade.
 

TeamGreene

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
4,556
Reaction score
9,085
The commission will likely decide it is not worth the trouble. SCOTUS itself will have some serious thought to ponder, not because of individual ideology, but because their position as legislative body is being manipulated and burdened by the exec branch overtly in every election cycle...been ongoing for 20 years now. On one hand, more justices will 'share out the burden' more broadly, on the other...will it? the election lawsuits by both parties in elections ...whether by victors or losers... has to stop.
SCOTUS kept the responses in our last cycle terse, to avoid their impartiality, but the execs keep hounding them.
That's the problem SCOTUS is not supposed to be legislating at all.
 

Lavey29

Floatin Dirty
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
3,932
Reaction score
5,196
I wonder if the socialist party proposes bullshit like this to gain leverage on their other agenda items like guns and the green new deal. Meaning they will drop the court stuff if the GOP stands down on moving that other legislation through congress?
 

Racey

Maxwell Smart-Ass
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
21,307
Reaction score
45,373
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE TRUMP IS A DICTATOR 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
 
Top