Stuffing Supreme Court

After what McConnell has done and what Trump is doing...

meh...

 

There's no meaningful discussion on USSC anymore. It's all political party at this point.

 

But where's the constitutional circumvention?

 

All that needs to be done, if dems win, is create legislation preventing what happened from happening.

Also, from a pure ideological point of view, in my view, it should be illegal for one side to appoint a SCOTUS judge.

We could make it something like 'at least 3 votes from the other side'. If they don't then the minority leader produces a document justifying, on legal grounds, why the justice was turned down (why three votes weren't given )..the matter of 'judicial philosophy' should only become a factor when the majority is greater than one justices, this, when the majority side has the advantage of choosing another justice, putting the advantage greater than one, would give the majority party the incentive to nominate a moderate, which, in my view, is the right thing to do.

This kind of thing 'the tyranny of factions' was feared by the Mssrs, Hamilton, Jay, Adair, and Madison, particularly in Federalist #10, though it doesn't address the matter of the supreme court specifically, it's more focused on the rationale behind the 'republic' form of government, but the issue of factionalism applies to the court, as well, in my view. So, the question is, how to 'control the effects' of a faction, (counter one side tyrannizing the other, basically ) as it is discussed in Fed #10.

Those that argue that 'justices' are not right or left, they should just apply law, this is a horeshit argument, because it has to do with 'judicial philosophy' which, when revealed, can easily be plotted on any right to left scale. In my view, this kind of thing should not be a secret, that justices should go on record, with 'JP' recorded and plotted on a chart, for all to see, so that when presidents are nominating them, they know where they stand. I really don't buy this 'they aren't political' crap. There is no avoiding politics, in my view. This 'they should only apply the law as it is written' well, if it were that simple, why do we need SCOTUS? I mean, we all can read, right? See, many laws are ambiguous, and their interpretation isn't according to what is written because what is written is vague, so what's remains is the justice's judicial philosophy. This fact was the very reason R v W was ruled as a 'privacy' issue, and not as a 'right to life' issue, It was 'judicial philosophy' that got us there. Right?

 

I have a great idea-some things are obvious. When a justice-like the late RBG, pretends that the second amendment does not protect an individual right, but the Ninth amendment protects gay marriage, they should not be on the court. There are some positions that are so obviously contrary to what the founders intended, that no honest person can say otherwise. As to your "signature" : Democrats generally are going to be more popular, because there are more losers than winners, and the elite of the Democrat party appeals to losers and tells them that the winners should be taxed to make the losers feel better. As wise men noted, Democracy ceases when the public learns it can vote itself the contents of the public treasury

 

I'm all for Hillary on the SCOTUS idea just to burn the wrinkled butts of the GOP traitors. The problem is that these establishment Dems are no longer an opposition party and it's the Progressives that are the one willing to actually fight back. The Peoples Party had an online convention a few weeks back and it was unbelievably uplifting hearing actual policy and honesty. They are gaining traction and hoping to have a candidate ready for the 2024. Both the GOP and the DNC have failed the people and are in it for themselves.

 

Do you believe when they wrote the Constitution, they intended to keep adding more justices in order to get the makeup they desired?

 

what’s the constitutional crisis?

 

I don't know. What did they say? What did the Constitution say?

In fact the number has changed many times

 

There is NOTHING in the Constitution about how many SCOTUS justices must be appointed.

 

what are they doing?

 

If you are not familiar with the subject please stay out of it

 

If you have nothing to say on the subject please ...say nothing

 

Why are you so against a Supreme Court with what you see as a 6/3 in favor of the right wing? There is no assurance that judges appointed by Republicans will even vote for the right wing side in cases. Look at Roberts in several recent cases. Look at David Souter appointed by Bush. Look at Roe v. Wade which was largely decided by justices appointed by Eisenhower and Nixon.

On the other hand most justices appointed by Democrats vote reliably liberal.

 

so again you really can’t explain yourself gotcha

the gop has a mandate on judges given to them by the people. the people literally expanded their majority in 2018

 

Dream on. With the possible (and only occasional) exception of Roberts, this SCOTUS has an already decidedly right wing bent.

Add an another anti-abortion right winger and you can kiss Obamacare and Roe v Wade goodbye

 

Nonsense...when you lose the popular vote you do NOT have a mandate

And 2018 was no mandate for the GOP. You LOST ground

 

huh? they won the popular vote in their states hence why they are senators. Do you not know how senators win elections??

the gop GAINed seats in the US Senate in 2018

 

Whats the big deal about either of them?

1) Obamacare is a government program. If it is ended another one can be passed.

2) Overturning Roe v Wade would not mean the end of legalized abortions. It would simply kick the issue back to the states. Each state could allow or restrict abortion as they saw fit.

 

Actually that's not quite it since any federal court judge can stall its application until it gets sent to the Supreme Court for a review. What do we think the Supreme Court would rule on such a blindingly politically partisan law affecting THEIR independent branch of government?

 

Yes, but we are not talking about Constitution hating, liberal activist judges.

 

What does the constitution say about the USSC?

 

Doesn't matter what I believe.
You made a statement about it going against the constitution.

I asked how/where is it against the constitution.
I assume by your answer to it, it's not against the constitution.

 

But do they have a say in the composition of the court?

 

“I share the legitimate outrage following Majority Leader McConnell’s demolition of our responsibility to advise and consent on judicial nominations. But we must not accept that our only course of action is to join in that demolition,” said Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), who is mulling a presidential run."
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/18/2020-democrats-supreme-court-1223625

I agree with Bennett's sentiment...............BUT................Repubs have proven themselves to only be interested in taking power by any means necessary. If Dems continue to respect convention in the hopes Repubs will follow suit they will get steamrolled.