Packing the Supreme Court

Packing the Supreme Court

  • Worst idea ever, don't let it happen

  • Great idea, let's do it


Results are only viewable after voting.

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,869
Reaction score
2,863
Points
113
I'm on record as saying Biden and the Dems should not do it. Roosevelt tried, and it turned out to be one of the things the history books look down on.

That said, if the SC starts going mental and making all kinds of incorrect or unconstitutional rulings, you have to exercise situational awareness. The constitution does not specify a number of justices, and this has to be seen as one of the reasons.

Let's be honest, people: if Clinton had won four years ago, we'd have 7 justices on the bench right now.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,869
Reaction score
2,863
Points
113
Interesting. So the Republicans were willing and indeed ready to unstack the court, which the article says is fair play. Stacking the court is merely the diametric opposite of what the GOP had already stated intent to do.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
9,898
Reaction score
1,545
Points
113
I'm on record as saying Biden and the Dems should not do it. Roosevelt tried, and it turned out to be one of the things the history books look down on.

That said, if the SC starts going mental and making all kinds of incorrect or unconstitutional rulings, you have to exercise situational awareness. The constitution does not specify a number of justices, and this has to be seen as one of the reasons.
Considering both of the Trump appointees have made rulings that fell on the left side of the ledger, do you really truly honestly think this is a major concern? I mean really?

You're a Professional Engineer, I would have to think that you maybe more than some of the other idiots on the board who aren't bound by being in a profession bound by ethics, understand that every one of these people are infinitely qualified to be on the court and all of the things being thrown around, the panic, the paranoia, over radical rulings are just one big f'ng boogeyman to try to scare people into submission, into voting left, whatever it is.

It's just stupid talk, meant to scare the shit out of people. Just dumb
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,869
Reaction score
2,863
Points
113
Considering both of the Trump appointees have made rulings that fell on the left side of the ledger, do you really truly honestly think this is a major concern? I mean really?

You're a Professional Engineer, I would have to think that you maybe more than some of the other idiots on the board who aren't bound by being in a profession bound by ethics, understand that every one of these people are infinitely qualified to be on the court and all of the things being thrown around, the panic, the paranoia, over radical rulings are just one big f'ng boogeyman to try to scare people into submission, into voting left, whatever it is.

It's just stupid talk, meant to scare the shit out of people. Just dumb
Just because someone's appointed to the court doesn't mean that they're "infinitely qualified." There have been many incorrect and unconstitutional rulings made over the years, some of which had to be corrected later. I think you know all these things.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
9,898
Reaction score
1,545
Points
113
Just because someone's appointed to the court doesn't mean that they're "infinitely qualified." There have been many incorrect and unconstitutional rulings made over the years, some of which had to be corrected later. I think you know all these things.
Your quote, again:

"That said, if the SC starts going mental and making all kinds of incorrect or unconstitutional rulings, you have to exercise situational awareness"

This is far from saying there have been incorrect rulings. This is flat out saying the court is going to be overrun by batshit crazy radicals, in a significant majority, and it's just not a reasonable concern. Again, each of the Trump appointees have voted with the left side of the court on multiple occasions already. Clearly they are not radical hard-core right-wing judges.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
18,761
Reaction score
2,456
Points
113
Interesting. So the Republicans were willing and indeed ready to unstack the court, which the article says is fair play. Stacking the court is merely the diametric opposite of what the GOP had already stated intent to do.
Again...it’s someone’s opinion. I don’t know how that suggests “Republicans“.
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
926
Points
113
I'm on record as saying Biden and the Dems should not do it. Roosevelt tried, and it turned out to be one of the things the history books look down on.

That said, if the SC starts going mental and making all kinds of incorrect or unconstitutional rulings, you have to exercise situational awareness. The constitution does not specify a number of justices, and this has to be seen as one of the reasons.

Let's be honest, people: if Clinton had won four years ago, we'd have 7 justices on the bench right now.
Incorrect according to you. Priceless.

Mental? According to you?
 

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
9,898
Reaction score
1,545
Points
113
I'm on record as saying Biden and the Dems should not do it. Roosevelt tried, and it turned out to be one of the things the history books look down on.
From smart and intelligent people that I have heard comment on the issue, for the record as well, I don't think the Dems will pack the court. More than likely just taking a page out of Trump's playbook and stoking the fire and poking the bear with Republicans, trying to get them riled up about nothing, basically one big troll job. Childish, but whatever....
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
42,515
Reaction score
3,402
Points
113
From smart and intelligent people that I have heard comment on the issue, for the record as well, I don't think the Dems will pack the court. More than likely just taking a page out of Trump's playbook and stoking the fire and poking the bear with Republicans, trying to get them riled up about nothing, basically one big troll job. Childish, but whatever....
I think it is a pretty stupid move if that's true. There is a percentage of Rs who may not vote for Trump except for the SCOTUS. The installation of Coney Barrett is great but it worried me that Rs would feel that Trump's job was complete for them.
The specter of the Dems possibly doing this fires up the R base. I honestly don't think that anything motivates the hard left anymore, other than hating Trump. They are drowning in it. So I am not sure that this changes a thing for the hard left and it may leave some moderate left leaners feeling like their party is doing something beyond the pale. This is something that even low information voters can understand and realize that it lacks basic fairness.
The fact that the Dems have been involved in a 4 year long attempted coup is too complex for that crowd to understand and the media doesn't report it.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,869
Reaction score
2,863
Points
113
From smart and intelligent people that I have heard comment on the issue, for the record as well, I don't think the Dems will pack the court. More than likely just taking a page out of Trump's playbook and stoking the fire and poking the bear with Republicans, trying to get them riled up about nothing, basically one big troll job. Childish, but whatever....
It's definitely not a troll job. It's exactly how it sounds: an idea that's been brought up that some people are down with and other people aren't. Simple. Not to beat a dead horse, but it wouldn't be a big of an issue if nominees like Kavsnaugh and Coney Barrett were of the caliber of RBG.
 

USAF

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
2,421
Reaction score
2,150
Points
113
It's definitely not a troll job. It's exactly how it sounds: an idea that's been brought up that some people are down with and other people aren't. Simple. Not to beat a dead horse, but it wouldn't be a big of an issue if nominees like Kavsnaugh and Coney Barrett were of the caliber of RBG.
How about the caliber of Gorsuch?

Had the lying Republicans just played honestly in 2016, this wouldn't even be a consideration.

Now the lying hypocrites have shown they're not at all above packing the court.

Screw em. Add four senators and five justices.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
45,572
Reaction score
2,161
Points
113
I'm on record as saying Biden and the Dems should not do it. Roosevelt tried, and it turned out to be one of the things the history books look down on.

That said, if the SC starts going mental and making all kinds of incorrect or unconstitutional rulings, you have to exercise situational awareness. The constitution does not specify a number of justices, and this has to be seen as one of the reasons.

Let's be honest, people: if Clinton had won four years ago, we'd have 7 justices on the bench right now.
You can rest easy. Trumps nominees rule closer to the constitution than even Merrick Garland would, may he RIP.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
9,898
Reaction score
1,545
Points
113
It's definitely not a troll job. It's exactly how it sounds: an idea that's been brought up that some people are down with and other people aren't. Simple. Not to beat a dead horse, but it wouldn't be a big of an issue if nominees like Kavsnaugh and Coney Barrett were of the caliber of RBG.
The caliber of RBG 30 years ago? Or the one that's been propped up the last 8-10 years on her deathbed? Everything RBG did leading up to her appointment on the court should be lauded, celebrated, revered, and considered ground-breaking evolutionary work. I think most reasonable folks would say that her record since being on the court was probably not up to that standard. She should be remembered and celebrated MUCH more for what she did in her life leading up to her appointment to the SCOTUS. That's a no-brainer, she was an absolute pioneer in her fight up to that point
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,869
Reaction score
2,863
Points
113
If she's gonna pull this kinda shit on the high court, pack away.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
23,003
Reaction score
1,585
Points
113
You're arguing against the same thing the Republicans are doing by strong-arming their SCOTUS nomination.
:cheer:
No he's not. Confirming a Supreme Court justice is normal, even in an election year when the White House has the Senate. 19 times they've been nominated & 17 times they've been confirmed. The left wing attempt to change the definition of court packing isn't working. People see right through it.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
45,572
Reaction score
2,161
Points
113
Not hostile at all, there is no discrimination anymore says the Trumptards.
There is discrimination, just not nearly the supply that progs like. What that says is that he didn’t even make the case that his work environment was hostile.
 
Top Bottom