Bubba wrote: ↑Apr 15th, '21, 16:03
Court packing was a bad idea when FDR wanted to do it and it's a bad idea now, regardless of how many justices were appointed by Trump, how Republicans treated Merrick Garland, and how they rushed to appoint Barrett.
Why?
I'm not trying to be glib. I'm just wondering what the rationale is. I'm against politicizing the court and trying to put a bunch of judges on their to get a certain result. But lets be honest, both parties have been trying to put judges on the court do just that for the last few decades or more. Packing the court to get a liberal majority is no different than choosing to replace a liberal judge with a conservative one - in both cases you're trying to get the court to give you a certain result by putting your chosen candidate on there, hoping he will vote how you want him to vote. That's not justice, and the Supreme Court's job is to render justice regardless of political persuasion.
Last edited by easyrider16 on Apr 15th, '21, 16:08, edited 1 time in total.
The court does not need to be politicized any further in the eyes of the American people. Furthermore, we have already seen what happened when Harry Reid made the bonehead play to eliminate the filibuster for lower court judges. What goes around comes around and if the Democrats increase the size of the court now, Republicans will do it later. Want to further destroy faith in institutions? Go ahead...
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
No, I agree with you, the Court should not be politicized. We should look for ways to de-politicize it.
Honestly Trump's SCOTUS appointees don't bother me that much. They are all accomplished jurists who have good reputations in the legal world. I think conservatives will be surprised when these jurists don't suddenly overturn the last 50 years of jurisprudence. Most people don't seem to get that Roe v. Wade and subsequently Planned Parenthood v. Casey represent compromise positions - states are allowed to ban some abortions but not others. Those aren't going to get overruled. Neither will Obergefell v. Hodges (preventing states from prohibiting homosexual marriage). These cases are like Brown v. Board of Education to the legal field - they've become the textbook cases for equal rights and fair treatment of all humans.
Bubba wrote: ↑Apr 15th, '21, 16:08
The court does not need to be politicized any further in the eyes of the American people. Furthermore, we have already seen what happened when Harry Reid made the bonehead play to eliminate the filibuster for lower court judges. What goes around comes around and if the Democrats increase the size of the court now, Republicans will do it later. Want to further destroy faith in institutions? Go ahead...
Dont forget Reid more or less had to do that in response to McConnell blocking pretty much every single court of appeals appointment that Obama made and then suggesting that the number of seats on The Disctict Court of Appeals be reduced (under the BS rational that they didn't need more judges since there wasn't enough work to do) to keep the conservative tilt of the court.
If you don't think McConnell would have eliminated the filibuster as soon as it suited him you are fooling yourself.
McConnell and the republicans easily shoulder over 50% of the blame for politicizing the courts.
Bubba wrote: ↑Apr 15th, '21, 16:08
The court does not need to be politicized any further in the eyes of the American people. Furthermore, we have already seen what happened when Harry Reid made the bonehead play to eliminate the filibuster for lower court judges. What goes around comes around and if the Democrats increase the size of the court now, Republicans will do it later. Want to further destroy faith in institutions? Go ahead...
Dont forget Reid more or less had to do that in response to McConnell blocking pretty much every single court of appeals appointment that Obama made and then suggesting that the number of seats on The Disctict Court of Appeals be reduced (under the BS rational that they didn't need more judges since there wasn't enough work to do) to keep the conservative tilt of the court.
If you don't think McConnell would have eliminated the filibuster as soon as it suited him you are fooling yourself.
McConnell and the republicans easily shoulder over 50% of the blame for politicizing the courts.
While what your saying is true, it still doesn't make packing the courts a good idea.
Bubba wrote: ↑Apr 15th, '21, 16:08
The court does not need to be politicized any further in the eyes of the American people. Furthermore, we have already seen what happened when Harry Reid made the bonehead play to eliminate the filibuster for lower court judges. What goes around comes around and if the Democrats increase the size of the court now, Republicans will do it later. Want to further destroy faith in institutions? Go ahead...
Dont forget Reid more or less had to do that in response to McConnell blocking pretty much every single court of appeals appointment that Obama made and then suggesting that the number of seats on The Disctict Court of Appeals be reduced (under the BS rational that they didn't need more judges since there wasn't enough work to do) to keep the conservative tilt of the court.
If you don't think McConnell would have eliminated the filibuster as soon as it suited him you are fooling yourself.
McConnell and the republicans easily shoulder over 50% of the blame for politicizing the courts.
While what your saying is true, it still doesn't make packing the courts a good idea.
Sure, in a perfect world that may be true, but at this point it does not matter. The genie is out of the bottle. Republicans have already packed the court, just in a different way.
And if some bizarre situation happened where Biden got 3 picks and the court all of a sudden had 5 justices appointed by democrats, do you really not think McConnell would all of a sudden be talking about how we need more justices at the first chance he could?
Bubba wrote: ↑Apr 15th, '21, 16:08
The court does not need to be politicized any further in the eyes of the American people. Furthermore, we have already seen what happened when Harry Reid made the bonehead play to eliminate the filibuster for lower court judges. What goes around comes around and if the Democrats increase the size of the court now, Republicans will do it later. Want to further destroy faith in institutions? Go ahead...
Dont forget Reid more or less had to do that in response to McConnell blocking pretty much every single court of appeals appointment that Obama made and then suggesting that the number of seats on The Disctict Court of Appeals be reduced (under the BS rational that they didn't need more judges since there wasn't enough work to do) to keep the conservative tilt of the court.
If you don't think McConnell would have eliminated the filibuster as soon as it suited him you are fooling yourself.
McConnell and the republicans easily shoulder over 50% of the blame for politicizing the courts.
While what your saying is true, it still doesn't make packing the courts a good idea.
Sure, in a perfect world that may be true, but at this point it does not matter. The genie is out of the bottle. Republicans have already packed the court, just in a different way.
And if some bizarre situation happened where Biden got 3 picks and the court all of a sudden had 5 justices appointed by democrats, do you really not think McConnell would all of a sudden be talking about how we need more justices at the first chance he could?
Of course he would, that's the problem.....packing the courts is not the solution. Wish I knew what was but how do you get politicians to play fairly. The two party system we have sucks, but would another relevant party fix anything? Probably not, they would most likely be just as crooked as our current parties.
Bubba wrote: ↑Apr 15th, '21, 16:08
The court does not need to be politicized any further in the eyes of the American people. Furthermore, we have already seen what happened when Harry Reid made the bonehead play to eliminate the filibuster for lower court judges. What goes around comes around and if the Democrats increase the size of the court now, Republicans will do it later. Want to further destroy faith in institutions? Go ahead...
Dont forget Reid more or less had to do that in response to McConnell blocking pretty much every single court of appeals appointment that Obama made and then suggesting that the number of seats on The Disctict Court of Appeals be reduced (under the BS rational that they didn't need more judges since there wasn't enough work to do) to keep the conservative tilt of the court.
If you don't think McConnell would have eliminated the filibuster as soon as it suited him you are fooling yourself.
McConnell and the republicans easily shoulder over 50% of the blame for politicizing the courts.
While what your saying is true, it still doesn't make packing the courts a good idea.
Sure, in a perfect world that may be true, but at this point it does not matter. The genie is out of the bottle. Republicans have already packed the court, just in a different way.
And if some bizarre situation happened where Biden got 3 picks and the court all of a sudden had 5 justices appointed by democrats, do you really not think McConnell would all of a sudden be talking about how we need more justices at the first chance he could?
Of course he would, that's the problem.....packing the courts is not the solution. Wish I knew what was but how do you get politicians to play fairly. The two party system we have sucks, but would another relevant party fix anything? Probably not, they would most likely be just as crooked as our current parties.
The solution is also not "McConnell and the Republicans do whatever they want and expect the Democrats to do nothing in return"
Dont forget Reid more or less had to do that in response to McConnell blocking pretty much every single court of appeals appointment that Obama made and then suggesting that the number of seats on The Disctict Court of Appeals be reduced (under the BS rational that they didn't need more judges since there wasn't enough work to do) to keep the conservative tilt of the court.
If you don't think McConnell would have eliminated the filibuster as soon as it suited him you are fooling yourself.
McConnell and the republicans easily shoulder over 50% of the blame for politicizing the courts.
While what your saying is true, it still doesn't make packing the courts a good idea.
Sure, in a perfect world that may be true, but at this point it does not matter. The genie is out of the bottle. Republicans have already packed the court, just in a different way.
And if some bizarre situation happened where Biden got 3 picks and the court all of a sudden had 5 justices appointed by democrats, do you really not think McConnell would all of a sudden be talking about how we need more justices at the first chance he could?
Of course he would, that's the problem.....packing the courts is not the solution. Wish I knew what was but how do you get politicians to play fairly. The two party system we have sucks, but would another relevant party fix anything? Probably not, they would most likely be just as crooked as our current parties.
The solution is also not "McConnell and the Republicans do whatever they want and expect the Democrats to do nothing in return"
So your in the two wrongs make a right camp. I understand that but it just leaves us in a loop.
Except for the fact that the previous two "wrongs" were both committed by the Republicans. They got cocky last year with confirming Barrett and figured they'd keep control of the Senate.
So now the expectation is the Democrats are to sit back and play nice and just live with a conservative stacked court?
deadheadskier wrote: ↑Apr 15th, '21, 20:46
Except for the fact that the previous two "wrongs" were both committed by the Republicans. They got cocky last year with confirming Barrett and figured they'd keep control of the Senate.
So now the expectation is the Democrats are to sit back and play nice and just live with a conservative stacked court?
The Senate's role is to advise and consent, not rubber stamp. They may vote down a candidate. They may do it repeatedly.
That creates a distinct difference between when the Senate and the Presidency is the same party, and when they are the opposite party. When they are different parties, the nomination needs to be centrist enough to win enough votes from the minority party. If the Senate fails to approve any candidate, it's possible the voters will adversarially respond in the next Senate election. There is no requirement for the Senate to fill the seat if they do not consent to any nominees. In this case if the President does not nominate someone centrist enough, he bears much of the blame for losing confirmation.
Garland was nominated by a D president to an R Senate. While some complain no hearings were held and no vote was taken, it also spared Garland the inauspicious title of being only the 12th Supreme Court candidate voted down. You can debate that either way. McConnell famously stated an election was coming, and to let the seat go to the next President and Senate. I'm not sure McConnell's statement by itself establishes a new rule. Rather, McConnell's statement illustrates the existing rule, the Senate's ability to not consent. The Senate's role is still to advise and consent, and that hasn't changed.
Barret was nominated by an R president to an R Senate. The Senate consented.
This seems to be a period of heightened partisanship, and party line votes. Consider that Ginsburg was appointed 96-3. If the next seat opens when the Presidency and Senate are held by different parties, could that President find a nominee that would garner anything close to that kind of majority?
Mister Moose wrote: ↑Apr 15th, '21, 21:07This seems to be a period of heightened partisanship, and party line votes. Consider that Ginsburg was appointed 96-3. If the next seat opens when the Presidency and Senate are held by different parties, could that President find a nominee that would garner anything close to that kind of majority?
They should strive for that kind of majority, but I fear today this is basically impossible ... even if the candidate is nearly perfect. Today, if we put to vote 'the sky is blue' I don't think we'd see 96-3.
