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
In reply to the discussion: The Supreme Court Has Planned for a June So Awful It Will Be Impossible to Keep Up [View all]Bettie
(16,860 posts)41. I think there should be enough justices that two or three
panels can hear cases (randomly chosen panels) to allow for the greater number of cases that a much larger population brings.
Plus, randomly chosen panels make it much harder to tailor an argument to a specific justice.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
62 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The Supreme Court Has Planned for a June So Awful It Will Be Impossible to Keep Up [View all]
marmar
Jun 2024
OP
Anybody who is not in favor of expanding this court beyond these corrupt partisan activists is pretty obtuse.
Goodheart
Jun 2024
#4
I wish we would have a house and senate with COURAGE to start impeaching the republican appointed justices for
BComplex
Jun 2024
#6
oops! I meant put the voting rights act back to it's original form, not the way the court has
BComplex
Jun 2024
#20
Guess I'm just obtuse, because I don't support packing the Court. I do support voting for Democrats
Silent Type
Jun 2024
#7
You keep telling yourself that until they take women's voting rights away. Then they have a permanent majority.
onecaliberal
Jun 2024
#9
Packing the Court ain't gonna stop that, sorry. We lost the most important election in our lifetime by not showing
Silent Type
Jun 2024
#12
Making the court representative of america is not packing the court. If they don't have the votes, it's stops
onecaliberal
Jun 2024
#13
Hey, I understand the anger. But packing the Court is a pipe dream. If you somehow suceed, I'll celebrate.
Silent Type
Jun 2024
#18
Please let me know when someone in an official capacity proposes that. Until then, I'll continue skeptical.
Silent Type
Jun 2024
#59
Umm...Hilary won the popular vote by a huge majority. It was just a few states where not enough people
BComplex
Jun 2024
#21
Unfortunately, we have the Electoral College. Popular vote doesn't elect our Prez. Doubt that is going to change either.
Silent Type
Jun 2024
#24
Agree, but there is no chance of it changing within the next 4 decades or so.
Silent Type
Jun 2024
#34
We have nine justices because there were once nine circuit courts. There are now 12 circuit courts; ergo ...
OMGWTF
Jun 2024
#29
Slave labor might be correct, they been saying "The South shall rise again"
KS Toronado
Jun 2024
#48
The GOP strategy to take over the court was successful. And the court is wasting no time in
Martin68
Jun 2024
#27
I think any justice who was installed by a convicted felon and traitor should be booted out
Bayard
Jun 2024
#35
Logjam you say. Sounds like a good reason to add six or more justices to the court.
Jakes Progress
Jun 2024
#53
Every Democrat or person on the Left who didn't vote for Hillary in the battleground states in '16,
elocs
Jun 2024
#56
An encapsulated version of how and where SCOTUS is today; explained by Jamie Raskin
Good Dog
Jun 2024
#61