Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

dalton99a

(94,325 posts)

40. Make it 15.

Reply to Shell_Seas (Original post)

Wed Feb 14, 2024, 11:42 AM

Feb 2024

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Shell_Seas

44 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Case For Expanding The Supreme Court [View all] Shell_Seas Feb 2024 OP

Unless the Court was 6-3 Liberal justices... then no one except Ted Cruz would advocate expansion. WarGamer Feb 2024 #1

To what rules do you refer? dpibel Feb 2024 #7

Call it the unwritten rule that's kept it at 9 for 155 years... WarGamer Feb 2024 #11

Bending unwritten rules dpibel Feb 2024 #13

Plz see my other post with a question for you WarGamer Feb 2024 #14

I done saw it, boss. dpibel Feb 2024 #16

So it has been expanded edhopper Feb 2024 #25

I feel like everyone should agree that lower courts should be expanded In It to Win It Feb 2024 #29

Here's Your Problem, Sir The Magistrate Feb 2024 #38

Hmmm... I hear ya. Thanks for the thoughts! WarGamer Feb 2024 #44

"influenced by partisan considerations" TwilightZone Feb 2024 #2

You say this as if it's a bad thing dpibel Feb 2024 #10

Honest question... WarGamer Feb 2024 #12

Fun game! dpibel Feb 2024 #15

Honest question: dpibel Feb 2024 #18

Just looking into motivation for the expansion... WarGamer Feb 2024 #31

It's perfectly reasonable to expand the Supreme Court... Think. Again. Feb 2024 #3

Said nobody ever Zeitghost Feb 2024 #9

Damn, Skippy! dpibel Feb 2024 #17

I thought the context of my comments were pretty clear Zeitghost Feb 2024 #19

The Sky Will Falling!!!11!! dpibel Feb 2024 #23

Yep... Think. Again. Feb 2024 #28

10 years from now we'll have thousands on SC. Won't happen. Silent Type Feb 2024 #4

Slippery Slopes! So much fun!! dpibel Feb 2024 #8

Pipe Dreams. Silent Type Feb 2024 #21

A fair assessment dpibel Feb 2024 #22

Not going to happen ripcord Feb 2024 #5

Wrong argument Fiendish Thingy Feb 2024 #6

Would it be part of the party platform Zeitghost Feb 2024 #20

Republicans will never hold Whitehouse! dpibel Feb 2024 #24

Why should that make any difference? Fiendish Thingy Feb 2024 #30

No Zeitghost Feb 2024 #34

I support court expansion and killing the filibuster regardless of who is in power Fiendish Thingy Feb 2024 #39

Just to be clear Zeitghost Feb 2024 #41

They would also need control of congress to pass the expansion law. Fiendish Thingy Feb 2024 #42

Why would they need control of the House Zeitghost Feb 2024 #43

Okay we won one special election, let's not get ahead of ourselves ColinC Feb 2024 #26

It's simple. Too much power in too few hands. yourout Feb 2024 #27

Are you some democracy lunatic? dpibel Feb 2024 #32

A couple months ago, I found a podcast that replays SCOTUS oral hearings... Mark.b2 Feb 2024 #33

I'd be happy with 15. Hermit-The-Prog Feb 2024 #35

Maybe we the number of justices could be more fluid Buckeyeblue Feb 2024 #36

I don't know what the solution is, but in its current form, the SCOTUS ecstatic Feb 2024 #37

Make it 15. dalton99a Feb 2024 #40