Page 5 of 7
Re: Hearing
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:55 am
by jfish26
I wonder if you could also rotate through Courts of Appeals judges, as seats 10 and 11.
Re: Hearing
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 9:13 am
by Deleted User 310
twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:37 am
jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:53 am
twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:45 pm
I'd prefer actual judges be appointed to the Supreme Court. Winning back the WH and Senate is enough of an F-U to the GOP for me. Dems don't need to be screw things up trying to be equally petty and childish.
I'm sure there are a million things this would break (and, it would require an amendment to the Constitution), but I briefly wondered last night about whether two elected justice seats should be added. So, you'd have nine appointed, permanent justices, and two seats that are elected on (say) staggered ten-year terms.
So there's at least some meaningful component that is at least somewhat representative of the will of the people.
I had the exact same conversation with my wife. I would have zero problem with two Supreme Court seats being added. More than that would make me uncomfortable.
Just curious....in the unlikely event trump wins reelection/Republicans maintain control of the senate, would you still be okay with them adding 2 more seats and picking 2 more supreme court justices?
(Different than the people voting on justices, but I don't see that happening, even though it seems like a decent idea)
Re: Hearing
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:02 am
by zsn
They also need the House to expand the court. No way they are winning the House.
BTW Moscow Mitch has already packed the courts. After blocking all of Obama’s nominations he has been confirming judges like crazy....or is it crazy like judges......all white mostly men.
So you bothsiders have no problem with that??
Re: Hearing
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:04 am
by twocoach
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 9:13 am
twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:37 am
jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:53 am
I'm sure there are a million things this would break (and, it would require an amendment to the Constitution), but I briefly wondered last night about whether two elected justice seats should be added. So, you'd have nine appointed, permanent justices, and two seats that are elected on (say) staggered ten-year terms.
So there's at least some meaningful component that is at least somewhat representative of the will of the people.
I had the exact same conversation with my wife. I would have zero problem with two Supreme Court seats being added. More than that would make me uncomfortable.
Just curious....in the unlikely event trump wins reelection/Republicans maintain control of the senate, would you still be okay with them adding 2 more seats and picking 2 more supreme court justices?
(Different than the people voting on justices, but I don't see that happening, even though it seems like a decent idea)
No, I wouldn't. I believe that adding the two spots under a Biden administration and Democratic controlled Senate would rectify the repulsive handling of the Garland nomination and bring the court closer to a more accurate representation of the will of the American people. I do not believe that a 6 to 3 conservative majority currently reflects the opinions of the American people today.
I do not believe that the beliefs of the few should determine the rights of the many.
Re: Hearing
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:21 am
by Deleted User 310
twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:04 am
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 9:13 am
twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:37 am
I had the exact same conversation with my wife. I would have zero problem with two Supreme Court seats being added. More than that would make me uncomfortable.
Just curious....in the unlikely event trump wins reelection/Republicans maintain control of the senate, would you still be okay with them adding 2 more seats and picking 2 more supreme court justices?
(Different than the people voting on justices, but I don't see that happening, even though it seems like a decent idea)
No, I wouldn't. I believe that adding the two spots under a Biden administration and Democratic controlled Senate would rectify the repulsive handling of the Garland nomination and bring the court closer to a more accurate representation of the will of the American people. I do not believe that a 6 to 3 conservative majority currently reflects the opinions of the American people today.
I do not believe that the beliefs of the few should determine the rights of the many.
Supreme Court Justices aren't supposed to enforce their personal opinions though. They are supposed to interpret and making rulings on laws.
You can see how saying things like "beliefs of the few should not determine the rights of many" is a slippery slope to go down.
Re: Hearing
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:21 am
by jfish26
I wonder some about an expansion + supermajority plan. In other words, the Ds expand the Court to 11, righting the Garland and Coney Barrett wrongs, but immediately afterward codifying into law (1) an eleven-justice limit and (2) a requirement for 60-vote approval for future justices.
The message being, the Democrats lay a guardrail against a perception that they're creating a cascade of expansions/railroad appointments.
Re: Hearing
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:22 am
by jfish26
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:21 am
twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:04 am
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 9:13 am
Just curious....in the unlikely event trump wins reelection/Republicans maintain control of the senate, would you still be okay with them adding 2 more seats and picking 2 more supreme court justices?
(Different than the people voting on justices, but I don't see that happening, even though it seems like a decent idea)
No, I wouldn't. I believe that adding the two spots under a Biden administration and Democratic controlled Senate would rectify the repulsive handling of the Garland nomination and bring the court closer to a more accurate representation of the will of the American people. I do not believe that a 6 to 3 conservative majority currently reflects the opinions of the American people today.
I do not believe that the beliefs of the few should determine the rights of the many.
Supreme Court Justices aren't supposed to enforce their personal opinions though. They are supposed to interpret and making rulings on laws.
Got some oceanfront land in Arizona, you interested?
Re: Hearing
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:32 am
by Deleted User 310
Slippery slope. Dems may not always have control over presidency/house/senate.
And further to the comment about "the beliefs of few determining the rights of many"....
I just looked up a stat....(Gallup poll from May 2020)
31% of the country identifies as Democrats.
25% of the country identifies as Republicans.
40% of the country identify as Independents....of the Independents polled currently 50% lean dem and 38% lean republican.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic ... ndependent
Re: Hearing
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:36 am
by twocoach
jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:21 am
I wonder some about an expansion + supermajority plan. In other words, the Ds expand the Court to 11, righting the Garland and Coney Barrett wrongs, but immediately afterward codifying into law (1) an eleven-justice limit and (2) a requirement for 60-vote approval for future justices.
The message being, the Democrats lay a guardrail against a perception that they're creating a cascade of expansions/railroad appointments.
That's the path I think we are headed down if Biden wins and the Dems take the Senate based on Biden's comments last night.
Re: Hearing
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:41 am
by twocoach
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:21 am
twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:04 am
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 9:13 am
Just curious....in the unlikely event trump wins reelection/Republicans maintain control of the senate, would you still be okay with them adding 2 more seats and picking 2 more supreme court justices?
(Different than the people voting on justices, but I don't see that happening, even though it seems like a decent idea)
No, I wouldn't. I believe that adding the two spots under a Biden administration and Democratic controlled Senate would rectify the repulsive handling of the Garland nomination and bring the court closer to a more accurate representation of the will of the American people. I do not believe that a 6 to 3 conservative majority currently reflects the opinions of the American people today.
I do not believe that the beliefs of the few should determine the rights of the many.
Supreme Court Justices aren't supposed to enforce their personal opinions though. They are supposed to interpret and making rulings on laws.
You can see how saying things like "beliefs of the few should not determine the rights of many" is a slippery slope to go down.
It's their history of rulings and opinions that make justices more "conservative" or "liberal". That is what I am referring to.
And everything is a slippery slope to something else if you choose to make it that. Meh.
Re: Hearing
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:48 am
by Deleted User 310
twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:41 am
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:21 am
twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:04 am
No, I wouldn't. I believe that adding the two spots under a Biden administration and Democratic controlled Senate would rectify the repulsive handling of the Garland nomination and bring the court closer to a more accurate representation of the will of the American people. I do not believe that a 6 to 3 conservative majority currently reflects the opinions of the American people today.
I do not believe that the beliefs of the few should determine the rights of the many.
Supreme Court Justices aren't supposed to enforce their personal opinions though. They are supposed to interpret and making rulings on laws.
You can see how saying things like "beliefs of the few should not determine the rights of many" is a slippery slope to go down.
It's their history of rulings and opinions that make justices more "conservative" or "liberal". That is what I am referring to.
And everything is a slippery slope to something else if you choose to make it that. Meh.
Speaking of the few controlling the many...CNN showed a poll that indicated the majority of americans do not think the Supreme Court should be expanded....
Re: Hearing
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 12:02 pm
by zsn
11 justice limit still gives the bad-guys (yes, that’s what I’m going with) a 6-5 advantage. Make it 13 and expand every appellate court to 15 and I’ll be ok with it
Re: Hearing
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 12:12 pm
by Deleted User 89
Re: Hearing
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 12:14 pm
by Sparko
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:48 am
twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:41 am
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:21 am
Supreme Court Justices aren't supposed to enforce their personal opinions though. They are supposed to interpret and making rulings on laws.
You can see how saying things like "beliefs of the few should not determine the rights of many" is a slippery slope to go down.
It's their history of rulings and opinions that make justices more "conservative" or "liberal". That is what I am referring to.
And everything is a slippery slope to something else if you choose to make it that. Meh.
Speaking of the few controlling the many...CNN showed a poll that indicated the majority of americans do not think the Supreme Court should be expanded....
Wait till they lose their health care, Social Security and freedom of choice. Would rather intervene before that it is necessary. It should be said: the right wing nuts on this court--Alito-Thomas-and Barrett--have no business on any court. THere is politicization and then there are idiotic idealogs. Barrett is an originalist, which means she should withdraw from consideration for the court having no franchise and not being a slave-holding white male.
Re: Hearing
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 12:38 pm
by twocoach
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:48 am
twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:41 am
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:21 am
Supreme Court Justices aren't supposed to enforce their personal opinions though. They are supposed to interpret and making rulings on laws.
You can see how saying things like "beliefs of the few should not determine the rights of many" is a slippery slope to go down.
It's their history of rulings and opinions that make justices more "conservative" or "liberal". That is what I am referring to.
And everything is a slippery slope to something else if you choose to make it that. Meh.
Speaking of the few controlling the many...CNN showed a poll that indicated the majority of americans do not think the Supreme Court should be expanded....
Could you provide me with a link to that? Either my browser cache isn't clearing out or I simply havent found it yet. I'd like to read it.
Re: Hearing
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 12:39 pm
by Deleted User 310
twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 12:38 pm
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:48 am
twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:41 am
It's their history of rulings and opinions that make justices more "conservative" or "liberal". That is what I am referring to.
And everything is a slippery slope to something else if you choose to make it that. Meh.
Speaking of the few controlling the many...CNN showed a poll that indicated the majority of americans do not think the Supreme Court should be expanded....
Could you provide me with a link to that? Either my browser cache isn't clearing out or I simply havent found it yet. I'd like to read it.
A link to the TV program that showed it?
Re: Hearing
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 12:40 pm
by twocoach
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 12:39 pm
twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 12:38 pm
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:48 am
Speaking of the few controlling the many...CNN showed a poll that indicated the majority of americans do not think the Supreme Court should be expanded....
Could you provide me with a link to that? Either my browser cache isn't clearing out or I simply havent found it yet. I'd like to read it.
A link to the TV program that showed it?
Oh, I assumed it was on their site. I'll wait until they post it, then.
Re: Hearing
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 12:41 pm
by Deleted User 310
Here is a forbes article that mentions the same thing...might be a different poll.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2 ... oll-finds/
Only 32% support adding more justices.
Seems like you maybe thought i was just lying about it.
Re: Hearing
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 12:53 pm
by ousdahl
I’d be all for restoring some sort of supermajority to judicial confirmations, and even more generally just restoring some bipartisan good faith. Heck, make it a super duper majority, like 90% or something.
I suppose I could get behind some attempt to balance the courts back in some short- and mid- term, but that also seems like a slippery slope.
Re: Hearing
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 1:05 pm
by Deleted User 310
ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 12:53 pm
I’d be all for restoring some sort of supermajority to judicial confirmations, and even more generally just restoring some bipartisan good faith. Heck, make it a super duper majority, like 90% or something.
I suppose I could get behind some attempt to balance the courts back in some short- and mid- term, but that also seems like a slippery slope.
Ya i wish our politicians would take this more seriously and not make it a partisan circus.
