General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNBC News: Democrats introduce bill to expand Supreme Court to 13 Justices
[link:https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/democrats-introduce-bill-expand-supreme-court-9-13-justices-n1264132|
April 14, 2021, 6:00 PM PDT
By Sahil Kapur
WASHINGTON Congressional Democrats will introduce legislation Thursday to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices, joining progressive activists pushing to transform the court.
The move intensifies a high-stakes ideological fight over the future of the court after President Donald Trump and Republicans appointed three conservative justices in four years, including one who was confirmed days before the 2020 election.
The Democratic bill is led by Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee. It is co-sponsored by Reps. Hank Johnson of Georgia and Mondaire Jones of New York.
The Supreme Court can be expanded by an act of Congress, but the legislation is highly unlikely to become law in the near future given Democrats' slim majorities, which include scores of lawmakers who are not on board with the idea. President Joe Biden has said he is "not a fan" of packing the court.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters on Thursday she has "no plans to bring it to the floor."
"I don't know that that's a good idea or bad idea. I think it's an idea that should be considered," she said of the court expansion plan. "And I think the president's taking the right approach to have a commission to study such a thing. It's a big step."
The push represents an undercurrent of progressive fury at Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., for denying a vote in 2016 to President Barack Obama's pick to fill a vacancy, citing the approaching election, before confirming Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett the week before the election last year.
Demsrule86
(68,454 posts)Novara
(5,817 posts)Let's just not try anything unless we have a guaranteed chance of success.
And people wonder why the Dems don't seem to DO anything? They're too cautious? They don't ever propose anything bold?
Defeatist people like you are holding us back.
In It to Win It
(8,222 posts)The Party seems very much undecided about that, even among us here on DU. That's the first question that needs to be answered before trying because we know we aren't getting any help on this.
Novara
(5,817 posts)In It to Win It
(8,222 posts)symbolism.
They actually need to tell people, and be extremely vocal, that "if you want an expanded Court, a Court that reflects the country in diversity and viewpoints that will uphold your voting rights and reproduction rights, we need you to give us 'X' amount of Senators. If you give us 'X', we will have the power to give you 'Y'."
Give us 'X' more senators and we will eliminate the filibuster and give you a Court that you deserve. Sure, they can try to pass this bill but actually tell people what is needed from them. If you're angry with the Supreme Court, give us 'X' amount of senators and we will remake the Supreme Court. Give us 'X' amount of senators, we will pass a bill codifying your reproductive rights.
People need to hear a plan of action from the Party, particularly from the Senators. After they try and fail to pass this bill, then what? Give the people a goal. They know what the people want. Communicate how can they help to make it happen. Mobilize them. I don't think trying and failing to pass this bill does that.
paleotn
(17,870 posts)What about framing do people not get? It's a big part OF convincing people that if they DO give the Dems X number of Senators to do Y they'll actually fucking do it and not think of a host of other reasons, batted around in THIS FORUM no less, to plant their asses squarely on their hands and do not one goddamn constructive thing. Otherwise they think the Dems are all blow and no do. Outside of the ACA, we haven't given them many reasons the last 20 years to think otherwise, because....we don't have the numbers in Congress, certain Dems won't play ball, it's hot outside, the season isn't right, the Republitrash might be mean to us.....Ugh.
There once was a Democratic Party that was fearless and kicked Republicans in the nuts. I grew up with that party in the 60's and 70's. I miss it.
In It to Win It
(8,222 posts)symbolic bills work as a motivating factor or are particularly convincing.
IMO trying and failing to pass a bill shows ineffectiveness from the Party in charge, rather than motivating and mobilizing people.
paleotn
(17,870 posts)In It to Win It
(8,222 posts)symbolic bill = not doing anything
paleotn
(17,870 posts)Not a flame, believe me, but that kind of thinking is about as irritating to me as fingernails on a chalk board. That's wasted time and effort thinking of an excuse. I don't lead like that and I don't expect my elected representatives to lead like that either.
prefer the illusion of doing something like proposing a bill that has zero chance to pass right now.
The only thing that will reinstate a woman's right to choose is voting more Democrats into office. Until that day (if it happens) there just isn't much that can be done right now. I wish I was wrong. But symbolic gestures don't impress me either.
SouthernDem4ever
(6,617 posts)no one is on record.
Demsrule86
(68,454 posts)at windmills. Time for Congress to go home after the hearings and start campaigning. And now the GOP can say we are attacking the courts. Why give them an issue? We need to win seats in purple and red states also.
In It to Win It
(8,222 posts)I'm not one for symbolic bills when we hold the power.
The Party is not communicating what it needs from voters. Our Party senators are just complaining that Republicans are blocking our bill. Give the citizens the goal. "We have a bill that will make the Court look more like you, diverse in your backgrounds and viewpoints. We have a bill that will make a Court uphold the rights and values that you hold dear and preserve your voting rights, your reproduction rights, your autonomy, your own self-determination. In order to pass that bill, here is what I need from you, the good people of America, vote for Val Demings down in Florida; Vote for John Fetterman in Pennsylvania; vote for Tim Ryan in Ohio; vote for Cheri Beasley in North Carolina. etc etc... We only have 50 senators but we need 55 (or 52, or 60, or whatever number) senators"
A vote for John Fetterman means you will get a Court that looks like you.
A vote for Val Demings means your voting rights are guarded by America's top cop.
A vote for Tim Ryan means expanding worker's rights
A vote for Cheri Beasley means protecting your bodily autonomy
"We have an abortion rights bill written and ready for a vote but getting that bill on Joe Biden's desk means electing those (X amount) senators."
Demsrule86
(68,454 posts)paleotn
(17,870 posts)Demsrule86
(68,454 posts)Demsrule86
(68,454 posts)In It to Win It
(8,222 posts)Maybe we can get 52 or 53, and when the stars aligns perfectly, we get 55 over the next 2 or 3 election cycles.
Assuming we retain the Presidency in 2024, are we willing to wait a few more election cycles to gain a 60 seat senate majority to enact our agenda?
Are we that afraid of Republicans reversing what we do, and implementing their own draconian agenda, that we do nothing big on abortion rights and climate change? Do we let that fear stop us?
Personally, I haven't advocated for nuking the filibuster but mentally, I've accepted the risks of that because I understand why we have to do it. I've come to understand that it is not very likely that we will get 60 senators in the foreseeable future. Obviously, Republicans won't work with us on things like abortion rights, voting rights, or climate change. Therefore, the choice has to be made to do what is necessary to enact our agenda. It appears to be the only path forward. I'm prepared accept the possibility of Republicans gaining power and controlling Congress.
If we, as a Party, is not willing to nuke the filibuster, we will have to learn to do without many things in our agenda because the next Republican to replace McConnell will be worse and more uncompromising. This won't get any easier as time goes past. Imagine that, Mitch McConnell is the best we'll get in the foreseeable future. Every Republican that replaces the existing crop will get worse.
Demsrule86
(68,454 posts)to fix the subsidies in the ACA by 23. And there is much that needs doing. We can add to the court with a simple majority. We can pass BBB. We can fix Medicare and extend the Medicaid expansion...we can codify Roe and double dare the rogue court to fuck with us. We need more Senators, more house members, and more state reps too.
paleotn
(17,870 posts)Demsrule86
(68,454 posts)SCOTUS...it is the truth. We can't do anything right now...frame the issue with campaigns.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,544 posts)In November
onetexan
(13,019 posts)Demsrule86
(68,454 posts)Fiendish Thingy
(15,544 posts)Its likely going to take a radical departure from politics as usual.
ShazzieB
(16,261 posts)And I, for one, love the statement it makes!
paleotn
(17,870 posts)No, we didn't just wring our hands, cry boo hoo hoo, and do not one goddamn thing. Sorry, but I despise those who waste so much goddamn time and effort thinking of creative ways why we CAN'T do something instead of creative ways in which we CAN. Makes me want to beat my head against a wall.
ShazzieB
(16,261 posts)paleotn
(17,870 posts)Demsrule86
(68,454 posts)so they can prepare to win the midterm...make no mistake there will be nothing we can do if we lose the house and/or the Senate.
OMGWTF
(3,937 posts)So, it's 42 senators vs. 2 senators. Bunchafkingbullshit! I am so GD sick of being pushed around by these small taker states full of ignorant hateful people who are always voting against their (and our) best interests.
Demsrule86
(68,454 posts)lees1975
(3,839 posts)At the very least, it applies more pressure to Manchin and Sinema to break the filibuster. It will be gone anyway if the Republicans ever get control of the senate again. If either of them are as outraged as they claim, this might be a good moment to give it a try.
It will also make Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski put up or shut up. How important were women's reproductive rights to either of them if all they are going to do is whine about the two justices that lied to them through their teeth when they were being confirmed? It tells there voters that what they are hearing from them is just noise, that neither of them really care about women's health and reproductive rights.
But if we don't do anything and don't at least make a fuss about it and use it as a wedge, as the GOP would most definitely do if they were in the same position, then we'll have only ourselves to blame for losing control of Congress.
Demsrule86
(68,454 posts)Let Congress head home and run on Roe and whatever else works and win the votes needed.
Magoo48
(4,697 posts)What happened to, Failure is not an option?
Magoo48
(4,697 posts)What happened to, Failure is not an option?
Demsrule86
(68,454 posts)Magoo48
(4,697 posts)Marius25
(3,213 posts)wryter2000
(46,023 posts)Or maybe just to show how they feel on the subject?
I know there are progressives here and elsewhere who expect the impossible from Democrats.
In It to Win It
(8,222 posts)Sure, they can show it by trying this bill as they have shown it many times before. They actually need to tell people that "if you an expanded Court, a Court that reflects the country in diversity and viewpoints that will uphold your voting rights and reproduction rights, we need you to give us 'X' amount of Senators. If you give us 'X', we will have the power to give you 'Y'."
Much like the 2020 election. Elect me and you get a pro-choice court pick. Elect me and I'll appoint (and the Senate will confirm) the first black woman to the Supreme Court. Georgians, elect me and you will get $2,000 checks and an expanded child tax credit.
jmbar2
(4,859 posts)jmbar2
(4,859 posts)KPN
(15,634 posts)with young voters who lament what they see as a lack of results enabled by half-hearted measures and attempts. Before anyone alerts me, I'm simply expressing what I hear when I talk with the younger generation via my three adult kids and their partners/acquaintances/associates. It's important to listen to what they have to say if you really want to get them out at the polls for us. Showing strong support for making real change in the near term will be important to them I believe.
Response to Marius25 (Reply #2)
Rebl2 This message was self-deleted by its author.
speak easy
(9,171 posts)paleotn
(17,870 posts)TomDaisy
(1,860 posts)Marius25
(3,213 posts)We do not have the votes to add seats.
paleotn
(17,870 posts)wryter2000
(46,023 posts)Is there any written procedure for changing the number of justices? I know the Constitution doesn't specify a number, but was it decided to do that in Congress at some point?
CincyDem
(6,331 posts)Id like to see Biden just send a nomination ( or two) to the senate. Just send it a have the senate advise and consent.
IMHO.
wryter2000
(46,023 posts)And tell McConnell that he unilaterally changed the size of the Court for over a year. Not that McConnell will listen.
CincyDem
(6,331 posts)50-50 plus Harris.
Hate to keep repeating my favorite phrase but
make them vote.
Stop dealing with hypotheticals and news sound bites. Put it on the floor and see who salutes.
IMHO.
SoCalDavidS
(9,998 posts)The Filibuster determines whether it can even be debated and then actually voted up or down.
It takes 60 votes to overcome the Filibuster, not 50 plus Harris.
W_HAMILTON
(7,830 posts)Because that's all that would need to reform the rules so that anything can be passed with a simple majority.
Of course, we don't have the 50 part of that equation right now due to Manchin, Sinema, and possibly a few others, but add a few more Democratic Senators in there come election time and we will be pretty close, if not at the threshold. The "quiet" ones on this matter would be easier to sway once Manchin/Sinema are rendered irrelevant on the subject.
SoCalDavidS
(9,998 posts)W_HAMILTON
(7,830 posts)...and I don't think it will take five.
Two will be enough to put enough pressure on remaining few holdouts, some of which come from very blue states and will feel the intense pressure every time they return home. That is a far cry from Manchin in West Virginia or even Sinema in reddish/purple Arizona.
KPN
(15,634 posts)SoCalDavidS
(9,998 posts)With inflation and high gas prices, I'm extremely worried. Thankfully we have some fine candidates running.
But Warnock needs to hold his seat in GA, and Walker is tied or leading that race at the moment. I'll be really depressed if GA votes in a MORON like him.
KPN
(15,634 posts)creating at least 4 children with absent an father will give more juice to that trend.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(1,914 posts)If the GOP retake the House, then it doesn't matter how many Senators we have, no law will pass to expand the Court. And unless things dramatically change, our chances of holding the House is extremely slim.
CincyDem
(6,331 posts)Nine is a custom, not a law. Biden nominate Jane Doe to the court. Senate approves Jane Doe. And then there were 10.
Thats my read. No law changed. No law broken.
How many things have we learned about in the last 4 years that were thought were laws o my to learn they were Conventions and Customs.
I think 9 is a convention. So does Mitch dine he thought 8 was fine. And when asked what hed do if Hillary won
he said hed hold the seat open (iirc).
DetroitLegalBeagle
(1,914 posts)The Judiciary Act of 1869 set the number of Justices to 9. That law would have to be changed in order to expand the court.
CincyDem
(6,331 posts)KPN
(15,634 posts)expanding the Court. Let's at least see where everyone stands.
moose65
(3,166 posts)It only takes 51 to confirm justices.
KPN
(15,634 posts)that got us? Just look where we are right now -- women's right to control their own bodies and health is now or soon will be essentially criminalized in many States, income inequality continues to grow, global warming continues to escalate, democracy is on the ropes as is our Constitution.
CottonBear
(21,596 posts)Hes a evil, traitorous facist.
Timewas
(2,190 posts)To bend over further, even our own side is against doing what is the only real answer
asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)Xavier Breath
(3,594 posts)regnaD kciN
(26,044 posts)Its obviously a news story from over a year ago, and has nothing to do with current events.
Xavier Breath
(3,594 posts)and wanted to post before it was too late. I always miss out on posting in the deleted threads before they're deleted.
Celerity
(43,056 posts)Xavier Breath
(3,594 posts)I can hardly see what the fuss was all about
Grasswire2
(13,565 posts)Fourteen months ago.
That is the actual fact.
Everyone was bamboozled by thinking that SCOTUS would never dare to act.
Colbert
(46 posts)... bring Susan Sarandon into it, didn't you?
TwilightZone
(25,423 posts)I've seen several of these over the past few days. Posters post old news items, trying to pass them off as current events, just to jack people up, and it's gotten rather tiresome.
Grasswire2
(13,565 posts)SMH.
That was the point of posting it. To show how long it has been.
TwilightZone
(25,423 posts)LOL. You actually expect anyone to believe that? Please....
KPN
(15,634 posts)RKP5637
(67,083 posts)msongs
(67,343 posts)Tetrachloride
(7,812 posts)lindysalsagal
(20,560 posts)DFW
(54,268 posts)This gives it some weight. What it can't do is buy them time.
Celerity
(43,056 posts)Grasswire2
(13,565 posts)Gee.
Better get busy with re-writing DU rules.
Totally Tunsie
(10,885 posts)Would it have been difficult to include the "comparison" in your OP?
It didn't reap the results you desired, because you didn't bother to explain your intent.
This is very misleading, bordering on irresponsible.
Celerity
(43,056 posts)If what you did became the norm here, the result would be a significant diminution in relevancy and clarity of this forum. Look at this thread alone. It contains a large amount of comments simply talking about the date of your OP article. Not exactly an outcome for ideal debate and discussion.
You knew it was a well over one year old article, yet posted in such manner that you left out that vital fact from the title as well as offering no commentary of your own creation acknowledging that fact.
You did post the date, but obviously many posters missed that, whilst multiple ones who did notice it chose to reply about the date, rather than the substance.
Just my tuppence, but I feel it is a 100% legit opinion. Your milage may vary.
Grasswire2
(13,565 posts)Demsrule86
(68,454 posts)Demsrule86
(68,454 posts)misleading whether you intended it to be or not. At least say that it is from 21 and not a response to what just happened
RKP5637
(67,083 posts)TwilightZone
(25,423 posts)I really wish that posters would stop jacking people up with old stories, trying to pass them off as current events.
Grasswire2
(13,565 posts)You totally miss the point.
TwilightZone
(25,423 posts)And posts like this are beyond tiresome.
Hav
(5,969 posts)It seems news articles just pop up in recommendations and people believe they are new stories and post it here without reading the article carefully.
But I agree, unless a comment is provided why a year old article is posted, these threads should be deleted once the mistake is recognized.
Grasswire2
(13,565 posts)Reading for comprehension is important.
Hav
(5,969 posts)You should inform half the posters in this thread who didn't realize it and look like fools. You post a year old article without any commentary at all. It's easy for readers to miss a single line.
Kid Berwyn
(14,788 posts)THATS how you save Democracy.
brooklynite
(94,293 posts)dalton99a
(81,374 posts)thesquanderer
(11,968 posts)AND one who's there because the Republicans PREVENTED one from being confirmed well before the 2016 election. The party of having their cake and eating it too.
48656c6c6f20
(7,638 posts)Now you went and did it, summon the IT CAN'T BE DONE BRIGADE AT ONCE! Oh never mind you're already here.
Grasswire2
(13,565 posts)TomDaisy
(1,860 posts)SergeStorms
(19,131 posts)Why is everyone going ballistic about this?
LudwigPastorius
(9,087 posts)Tarc
(10,472 posts)ancianita
(35,925 posts)YoshidaYui
(41,818 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)Each one has a SCROTUS justice assigned to it, ergo there should be 13 justices.
ancianita
(35,925 posts)FEDERAL DISTRICT ASSIGNMENTS
CIRCUITS:
DC John G. Roberts
First Stephen Breyer
Second Sonia Sotomayor
Third Samual Alito
Fourth John G. Roberts
Fifth Samuel Alito
Sixth Brett M. Kavanaugh
Seventh Amy Coney Barrett
Eighth Brett M. Kananaugh
Ninth Elena Kagan
Tenth Neil M. Gorsuch
Eleventh Clarence Thomas
Federal Circuit John G. Roberts
Of the 13 Federal Districts in the U.S. Federal system.
Roberts oversees 3 -- the DC, 4th District & the Federal District
Alito oversees 2 -- the 3rd and 5th Districts.
Kavanaugh oversees 2 -- the 6th and 8th Districts.
The other six justices oversee ONE District each.
paulkienitz
(1,296 posts)mrsadm
(1,198 posts)Back when Mitch McConnell denied him an appointment he should have played hardball to get the appointment.
lefthandedskyhook
(964 posts)I'm not quite sure how we fix these things from the past, but there's plenty to do now!
Demsrule86
(68,454 posts)Demsrule86
(68,454 posts)Grasswire2
(13,565 posts)The thread is today.
Midnight Writer
(21,692 posts)Hundreds.
They kept plugging away at it until they got it through.
Every journey starts with a single step.
JoeOtterbein
(7,699 posts)Good news!
Demsrule86
(68,454 posts)denbot
(9,897 posts)Make it so starting 2022 if not by E.O.
Moostache
(9,895 posts)The Court is broken. It is NOT a legitimate court any longer and it really pre-dates the usual suspects of McConnell and Trump or Garland or Scalia. It was broken in 2000 when the court politicized the POTUS recount in Florida and allowed the nonsense that went on with the Brooks Brothers Riot and the handing of the Presidency to W. by a court full of compromised justices.
It has only gotten worse.
We allowed this to get far when the Obama Adminsitration refused to shut down the whole fucking shit show government when McConnell pulled his stunt. There should have been ZERO government business for the duration of McConnell's intransigence and Obama should have been giving nightly updates to the country and named names and pointed fingers directly at the soft coup that was taking place. 1 seat stolen.
We allowed this to get to this pitch when no one pulled RBG aside after her FIRST bout with colon cancer and suggested that helping to select a successor would serve the long-term gains she was instrumental to better than dying on the bench would. That was lunacy and allowed RvW to fall at the hands of Comey-Barrett and her religious zealots.
Fixing this is going to require a rebalancing of the court to reflect the will of the country and not the will of the states. The idea of separate state's rights to solve a question of fundamental human rights was already adjudicated via Civil War from 1861 to 1865. Failure to fix the court and allow the justices to be brought in line with the country NOW instead of the country from 1861 will ensure that round 2 is going to happen and this time is won't be hundreds of thousands dead, it will be millions.
Either the SCOTUS is fixed and votings rights restored/protected, women's bodily autonomy and private decisions that affect individuals and not the state (contraception, marriage and property rights, and who puts the naughty parts while consenting adults) returned to the people directly - instead of their "elected representatives" from the gerrymandered mess we have now...or the results will be a second civil war and partioning of the continent into separate states. Its that or constant guerilla warfare in all contentious regions across the map. Its water rights disputes that erupt into full blown battles. Its militias feeling empowered to enact their own laws in defiance of a federal authority. Its all out war and destruction.
And someone had better secure the nukes, NOW. Or its going to be a hell of a lot worse very quickly.
The signals have been made, the writing is on the walls everywhere - a collapsing economy with hyper inflation to drive away Democratic supporters, a compromised election system with no voting rights protection (and further state-level shinanegans for who counts the votes and certifies them) to reduce turn out and now a renegade SCOTUS out for privacy rights in favor of theocratic autocracy? None of that even considers the question of why the fuck is Donald Trump not in prison planning for his day in court for what is already known about J6?
This is as serious a crisis as the republic has ever faced from within. The question of surviving another decade has been off the tables since 1812. It is literally back and staring us in the face. This is not something voting alone can overcome. This requires a wholesale change in the structure of the SCOTUS, the rules of the SENATE and the guts of the Executive branch.
Its not a question of "if", its "when"... act now and maybe we survive I give it 50-50 odds.
Wait until after the mid-terms? Carve the grave marker now:
USA
1789 - 2022
JCMach1
(27,553 posts)Since 2000
...
Grasswire2
(13,565 posts)Prescient, and troubling, and important.
MrWiggles
(11 posts)The right will block ANY attempt to expand the Supreme court.
But if they get the WH, and control of the house and senate
you can bet that THEY will expand the court and add another
4 right wing FASCISTS to the court.....and then SCREAM
when Democrats are opposed to THEIR power grab.
calimary
(81,085 posts)Its about time!!!!!
Since the bad guys cheated and out their thumbs in the scale, we have to take drastic action. Sorry! We. Just. DO!!!!! We. Just. HAVE. TO.!!!!!
Totally Tunsie
(10,885 posts)calimary
(81,085 posts)What happened to it?
Who backed it?
How hard did they back it?
What did they do about it?
Did they promote it? At ALL?
Did they make ANY noise about it? ANY? WHERE were the press conferences and hearings and speeches in high-profile venues? Was ANYBODY out there going on local and/or national TV bringing this to wider public attention? Or on the radio? Or in any of the major newspapers? Hell, I watch A LOT of news. I saw NOTHING about this - anywhere!
Whered it go?
Is it still happening - or do we have to start over?
And DO ITS PROPONENTS EVEN UNDERSTAND the stakes by now - that this is a five-alarm fire? No, I take that back. This is a TWELVE-alarm fire. And not a Cat-5 hurricane but a category-15 hurricane! Do our reps even get this? At long last?
WHY was this treated like our best-kept secret when they needed to be out there vocally, in public, at press events, writing guest editorials all over the place, making noise, generating interest, urging the public to call other reps about it? WHERE was the nagging and reminding and making a steady nonstop stink? Hell, did anybody get a whiff of ANYTHING along these lines???
The cupboard was fucking BARE. WHAT, were they afraid if they spoke up or draw attention to themselves, somebody might get mad at them? Well boo-hoo-hoo to THAT! Youre afraid of threats and somebody has a gun? Then, dammit, you have staffers. You can make speeches on the floor of the House and Senate! You can hold press conferences IN the Capitol building where theres a lot more security these days. You can do phone and on-camera interviews from the safety of your well-protected offices!
Doesnt ANYBODY believe in making noise about anything anymore, or must we all be obsessed with being low-key and oh-so-polite and DONT raise your voice for Petes sake
Does NO ONE back there in DC understand the value of promotion? And making noise? By now, for Petes sake?????
Im so tired of being disappointed and under-impressed!!! Its downright INFURIATING!!!!
Grasswire2
(13,565 posts)What happened to it??
Where was the messaging?
Where was the urgency?
Where was the FEAR and the determination to do something?
MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)10/19/2021 Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
Action By: Committee on the Judiciary
It has 56 Co-sponsors.
myohmy2
(3,137 posts)...I'm convinced if the turtle had our slimmest of majority he would somehow figure out a way to drive a semi through it and get what he wanted...
...sometimes we just don't appear to be hungry enough...
...just do it...
aggiesal
(8,906 posts)Most people think more liberal instead conservative.
They don't usually vote for the (D)'s platform but if you ask about each platform item, they agree with it.
Example, legalization of pot. Everyone wants it, but some vote for (R)'s who vote against it.
Saying that, (D) presidential candidate have won the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 election, but
have only confirmed 4 of the last 20 justices.
The 2000 stolen election would have produced 2 justice appointed by Bush, for Gore that we didn't get (assumption that Gore would win the second term).
The Merrick Garland seat stolen by McTurtle, belonged to Obama
And of course RBG's seat rushed through under Pendejo45.
With the Bush appointees and the Obama's stolen seat, that would have been a 3 justice swing. SCOTUS would have been 6-3 with 5 liberals, and Garland as swing with 3 Conservatives.
This would have been a more accurate SCOTUS in 2022.
Is it time for 13 justices? Yes.
I also believe that only 9 justices should hear any case, with the majority always slanted in the direction of who holds the WH.
That way, to the victor goes to spoils.
If you lean to the left all the time, you'll go in circles.
Likewise if you lean to the right all the time, you'll go in circles as well.
This way it always straightens out every 4 or 8 years.
Also, you can't contest a specific constitutional point because you'll never know when it will reach SCOTUS and who's in charge.
Now cases can reach SCOTUS knowing which direction it's going to go.
Gay rights, Contraception & ACA are all on the chopping block because they know this court has enough to overturn every decision.
Again, just how I see it.
Response to Grasswire2 (Original post)
denbot This message was self-deleted by its author.
USALiberal
(10,877 posts)Grasswire2
(13,565 posts)For the record.
Response to Grasswire2 (Original post)
Voltaire2 This message was self-deleted by its author.
CousinIT
(9,217 posts).restored, rebalanced. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG with the media that they can't SAY this? What is wrong with Joe Biden and Democrats that THEY can't SAY THIS?
IT'S THE GODDAMNED TRUTH.
malthaussen
(17,175 posts)It would seem to violate the Separation of Powers clause, but it is a grey area. The number of Justices has never been legislated before.
So, what happens if the law passes, it is challenged in court, and the USSC has to rule on its Constitutionality?
-- Mal
dlk
(11,509 posts)The last time the Supreme Court was increased to nine justices was when the number of appeals courts expanded to nine. Given the case backlog in all of the courts, it would be the logical thing to do, and should have been done ages ago.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,781 posts)...and so on...
We need to amend to set a number, and end service for life. Either a 20 year limit, OR 12 years, then an option for the President to retain or replace; and another 12 years. Finally, the Senate gets 45 days to decide. If they haven't decided by day 46, they are locked in the Capitol by US Marshall's and can't leave or recess until they decide yes or no.
Sogo
(4,986 posts)It should be deleted!
RKP5637
(67,083 posts)Response to Grasswire2 (Original post)
pecosbob This message was self-deleted by its author.