Your Arguments for/against "court packing"

[spartan max2]

When Romney confirming he will vote for a new Supreme Court Justice is looks clear that the Senate will appoint another justice.

Making the Supreme Court 6 - 3. 6 appointed by Republicans, 3 by Democrats.

Due to that Democrats are calling to "pack the court", as in increase the amount of seats in the supreme court to change the balance so that they can appoint more. The argument is that the constitution that not specifically say you can't do that.

What is everyone's thoughts on this?

Now I know you all just like to insult each other , but I am interested in actually thought out arguments around the issue.

[+OverSword]

Just no.  We are not going to change the rules just because the dimocrats haven't been getting their way lately.  The smart thing for them to have done would have been to ask RBG to step down while Obama was still president but that didn't happen so tough cookies. 

[aztek]

we need the court fully stuffed and working as designed. BEFORE the election,  i see no even half a valid reason  not to do that. 

[ian hacktorp]

Since RBG herself said packing the courts is a bad idea, it seems the Dems have no argument to make whatsoever.

And, unlike the phony claim about her "fervent dying wish", she made her remark about court-packing on camera.

It's an empty threat.

Edited September 22, 2020 by ian hacktorp

[spartan max2]

13 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Just no.  We are not going to change the rules just because the dimocrats haven't been getting their way lately.  The smart thing for them to have done would have been to ask RBG to step down while Obama was still president but that didn't happen so tough cookies. 

Fun fact, they actually did try to pressure her to step down during Obama but she refused.

[+Desertrat56]

We need to leave the number of justices  as it is.  A few of them will be "leaving the planet" soon and more places will be available. 

[RavenHawk]

22 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

We need to leave the number of justices  as it is.  A few of them will be "leaving the planet" soon and more places will be available. 

That's why Trump will have 2 or 3 more to nominate.

[Katniss]

sigh - I'm for LGBTQ rights and women's rights and I don't like any of Trump's SCJ candidates, I would rather see a judge like RBG take her place, but fair is fair and I can't see repacking the SC as ever a good idea. It should stay the same number like it is.

But I wish the Republicans would wait until after the election though, because I believe the Democrats will come back with extreme political vengeance after they get back in power. And they eventually will. Because they may try and do something like impeach Kavanaugh. Because right now this whole thing is turning into an eye for an eye kind of mentality between both parties and that is how things get worse and bring us all down as a country.

[+Desertrat56]

4 minutes ago, Katniss said:

sigh - I'm for LGBTQ rights and women's rights and I don't like any of Trump's SCJ candidates, I would rather see a judge like RBG take her place, but fair is fair and I can't see repacking the SC as ever a good idea. It should stay the same number like it is.

But I wish the Republicans would wait until after the election though, because I believe the Democrats will come back with extreme political vengeance after they get back in power. And they eventually will. Because they may try and do something like impeach Kavanaugh. Because right now this whole thing is turning into an eye for an eye kind of mentality between both parties and that is how things get worse and bring us all down as a country.

That's why I quit voting dem or rep 2 decades ago.  Supporting either party is just supporting more of the same and the big corporations who don't represent the people.

[Katniss]

42 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

That's why I quit voting dem or rep 2 decades ago.  Supporting either party is just supporting more of the same and the big corporations who don't represent the people.

Can I ask you this question? I was wondering if a third party appears in your local state election or even for the national Congress do you vote for them? Sometimes an Independent will run in my local state elections and I do vote for them instead of a Republican or Democrat. I believe that is the way to eventually get a third party into the highest office, by voting in more third parties at the lowest offices.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Katniss

[Big Jim]

Isn't it funny that the Dems are claiming that postponing the appointment to replace Scalia set an unchangeable precedent , but consider 230 years of having 9 judges to be something that can be changed on a whim?

The Dems have proven all too willing to play hardball politics when they have the ball, but they whine and complain and want to change the rules when it's the other side's turn to play.  I believe the Founders set the judges' terms for life to allow fate to intervene in politics.  That way the opportunity to appoint new judges is unpredictable and random.  The Republicans have every right to appoint and confirm a new judge and should do so without delay.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Big Jim
typo

[Tatetopa]

5 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

The Dems have proven all too willing to play hardball politics when they have the ball, but they whine and complain and want to change the rules when it's the other side's turn to play. 

True of both teams.

[+Hammerclaw]

[Setton]

14 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

Isn't it funny that the Dems are claiming that postponing the appointment to replace Scalia set an unchangeable precedent , but consider 230 years of having 9 judges to be something that can be changed on a whim?

The precedent is 130 years of not appointing anyone in an election year. So it's the republicans that think precedent can be changed on a whim.

[Kittens Are Jerks]

2 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

When Romney confirming he will vote for a new Supreme Court Justice is looks clear that the Senate will appoint another justice.

Making the Supreme Court 6 - 3. 6 appointed by Republicans, 3 by Democrats.

Due to that Democrats are calling to "pack the court", as in increase the amount of seats in the supreme court to change the balance so that they can appoint more. The argument is that the constitution that not specifically say you can't do that.

What is everyone's thoughts on this?

Now I know you all just like to insult each other , but I am interested in actually thought out arguments around the issue.

I say pack it and pack it good. The idea of the Christian right dominating the Supreme Court is downright frightening. They will walk back women’s rights, LGBT+ rights, civil rights, as well as the rights of so many other groups and individuals. 

[+OverSword]

41 minutes ago, Katniss said:

Can I ask you this question? I was wondering if a third party appears in your local state election or even for the national Congress do you vote for them? Sometimes an Independent will run in my local state elections and I do vote for them instead of a Republican or Democrat. I believe that is the way to eventually get a third party into the highest office, by voting in more third parties at the lowest offices.

exactly right 

[+OverSword]

34 minutes ago, Setton said:

The precedent is 130 years of not appointing anyone in an election year. So it's the republicans that think precedent can be changed on a whim.

Wrong.  130 years that one was not confirmed because the other party had the majority.  There were I believe nine nominations that were not confirmed.  To suggest that this is playing dirty is ridiculous.  People are whinning because the odds favor trump to have another successful SCJ appointment

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm

 

Here are the rules of the senate if anyone wants to dig through them and see how this works.

https://www.rules.senate.gov/rules-of-the-senate

Edited September 22, 2020 by OverSword

[Autochthon1990]

I say pack it and pack it good, then make changing the seats after that require a unanimous vote. Why? Because we cannot have a party that represents maybe a third of the electorate have that much power, and it will send a very clear message.

Know your place, in the dustbin of history, the people have rejected your toxic ideologies and you will not, repeat not, tell the rest of us what to do because some holy book supposedly demands it. It will show everybody that we are willing to play hardball, and we're not going to let the farthest right political party in the western world pull bull**** power moves unopposed. There's just too much at stake not to push back, gay rights, minority rights, universal healthcare, lives are at stake here, and if you can look at that and shrug it off...well congrats on being selfish, because there's a lot of very scared people right now and I personally know at least two people who could have their families torn apart by a far right court. 

So do what is right for the people, **** the GOP, they've sold their souls to Trump, and must be punished for it if and when the left takes over in January. 

[the13bats]

3 hours ago, ian hacktorp said:

Since RBG herself said packing the courts is a bad idea, it seems the Dems have no argument to make whatsoever

Nice cherry picking,

She also said dont fill her seat until after election.

 

[Robotic Jew]

1 hour ago, Big Jim said:

Isn't it funny that the Dems are claiming that postponing the appointment to replace Scalia set an unchangeable precedent , but consider 230 years of having 9 judges to be something that can be changed on a whim?

The Dems have proven all too willing to play hardball politics when they have the ball, but they whine and complain and want to change the rules when it's the other side's turn to play.  I believe the Founders set the judges' terms for life to allow fate to intervene in politics.  That way the opportunity to appoint new judges is unpredictable and random.  The Republicans have every right to appoint and confirm a new judge and should do so without delay.

No? What they're saying is if you do away with 1 precedent then what good are all of the others? The GOP and their hypocrisy and sideways way of governing is ripping this nation to shreds. For what it's worth though, even IF the democrats were able to capture a the majority it wouldn't matter. They've shown they are too spineless and cowardly to actually stand up to the GOP. Also, trump isn't leaving office. That's clear. Even if he loses by 30million votes he's not moving his fat ass out of that oval office and his worshippers will fall in line right behind him and his fascist regime without batting an eye. And the dems will wring their hands and claim there's nothing that can be done. 

If you TRULY believe your last line is true, how do you justify what they did to Obama?

I'm also of the belief that SCOTUS shouldn't be a lifetime appointment. There really needs to be some kind of term limit set. Lifetime appointments is weird and leads the situation we have now where you have old outdated thinkers who rarely, if ever contribute anything to the national conversation. 

[spartan max2]

Some interesting background information I keep seeing thrown around.

In 2013 Democrat controlled Senate inacted the "Nuclear option" making it to only need a simple majority vote (51) instead of the 60 to end a filibuster to appointment a executive position and judicial nominees (the supreme court was excluded from this). 

In 2017 Republicans expanded that nuclear option to include supreme court nominees. 

 

In 2013 and 2017 the opposition party was fillibustering a nominee. (Fillibuster is when you just keep talking to not allow a vote to be had).

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

Edited September 22, 2020 by spartan max2

[the13bats]

You guys know i do point out the disaster of the trump presidency the grossly incompatant response to covid etc. But ill step away from that for this.

I dont pic rep or dems and what i think is congress should be even and not just dems and reps but 3 teams including indie,

SCOTUS should be a vote of citizens not appointed.

There shouldnt be the BS of one side in the house has majority so like spoiled brats they always get their way, and i know my way will scare the hell out of those who do embrace a side ,

As far as why this is a question is a great example of why i find the house flawed, the reps trying to make excuses why it wasnt cool in 2016 but is cool now to fill that seat before election, and be do sure if shoe was on other foot that side would play the same games,

So sure pack thst court. Who says a circus can only have 3 rings.

 

[+OverSword]

29 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

I say pack it and pack it good. The idea of the Christian right dominating the Supreme Court is downright frightening. They will walk back women’s rights, LGBT+ rights, civil rights, as well as the rights of so many other groups and individuals. 

 

You obviously don't understand how the supreme court works.  They and all other American courts are obligated to rule according to precedent.  If the supreme court has already ruled they CAN NOT rule in the opposite direction.  In order to eliminate a supreme court ruling a new law replacing the old must be written, passed, and signed into law by the other two branches of government.  If those new laws are challenged and get to the supreme court then the court rules on the constitutionality of the law.  That is all they do, interpret the constitution.  For example in RvW abortion was deemed constitutional.  Every challenge to aspects of that law such as at what point in a pregnancy can you not get an abortion have strengthened the constitutionality of the original ruling that abortion is constitutional.  In order to overturn RvW a new law must be written, passed and signed, and that will never happen.  They didn't teach you guys anything about the way that government works in high school did they?  They used to but it's obvious they don't now.  

[+OverSword]

10 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Nice cherry picking,

She also said dont fill her seat until after election.

 

Who cares?  Did she call dibs too?  

[+Liquid Gardens]

58 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

The Republicans have every right to appoint and confirm a new judge and should do so without delay.

Agreed that they have the right, just as they had the right to delay Scalia's replacement for better part of a year and now have the right to disregard their previous 'reasoning for that and now vote for RGB's replacement.  And by the same reasoning if the Democrats get power then they should 'pack the court' and add a few seats and vote in some liberal judges without delay, using the exact same reasoning and justification.

If 'what should be done' is determined merely by what they have 'the right' to do then that applies equally both ways, and unfortunately at this point is the only pitiful standard that we can even try to hold politicians to, as it's the only one they'll hold themselves to; notions of 'what's fair' and such are irrelevant and hopelessly hypocritical on both sides by now. So I disagree, respectfully, that the Dems 'court packing' would be 'changing' any 'rules' - these are the rules.

As far as court-packing, I support the Dems doing it in response to the Repub's delay of Scalia's replacement, but obviously is ridiculously stupid. Hey, why not have one side add 10 seats, why mess around?  Or is it just going to constantly be tilted towards whomever has Congressional power at the moment and the number of justices keeps inevitably growing?   Why not cut the justices to three, and that your side get to pick which three remain?

The answer to me is to put some simple laws in place:  require an amendment to change the number of justices from 9, and set firm standards on how many days in advance of an election are required in which the Senate will be required to hold the justice approval proceedings.  This seems so obvious and shouldn't need to be said, it's at the level of telling a kid not to eat dirt, but again and again it becomes clear that the founders made a mistake hoping that in their future a sufficient number of people who can act like actual adults would be elected.