Dems Latest Scheme: ‘Balance’ Supreme Court by Adding Two Liberal Judges

So, when power returns to us, we will expand it further. Ultimately we should expand it to 59 Justices.

Make the Supreme Court lots bigger. It's not a priesthood, it should represent America.

A Supreme Court of 59 justices would cut down on politics, mystique and the Ivy League, and be more like the legislature it's now called on to be.

If the country can be thrown into a swivet by the retirement of a single 81-year-old man, it suggests that the Supreme Court has become too important, and too sensitive to small changes, to play its role constructively as it’s currently made up.

Increasing the number of justices would reduce the importance of any single retirement or appointment. And it would also reduce the mystique of the court, a feature, not a bug. Nine justices could seem like a special priesthood; two or three times that number looks more like a legislature, and those get less respect. Which would be fair.

They aren't Platonic guardians. They are lawyers. The Supreme Court isn’t really some sacred body of great moral thinkers, it's essentially a committee lawyers in robes and a fancy building.

But now the Supreme Court doesn’t just decide technical legal issues, but is called on to decide some of our most pressing moral and social questions. If the court is going to remain in that role, then it needs to be more representative of America as a whole, and less sensitive to minor changes that produce major shifts in its decisions. The near-universal belief that replacing Anthony Kennedy with a conservative will produce such a major shift is an admission that the Supreme Court today isn’t about legal rigor or “neutral principles,”but essentially about politics.

End the Harvard-Yale monopoly
Keep the nine we have who are appointed by the president, and add one from each state, to be appointed by governors, and then confirmed by their State Legislature. Fifty-nine justices is enough to ensure that they aren’t all from Harvard and Yale as is the case now, and enough to limit the mystique of any particular justice. If the Supreme Court is going to function, as it does, like a super-legislature, it might as well be legislature-sized.

Making the Supreme Court less sensitive to shifts in the political winds would also benefit presidential and senatorial elections. Right now, they turn significantly on who will be appointed and confirmed to the Supreme Court. If that’s less of an issue, then voters can evaluate candidates on how they’re likely to do their own jobs, rather than who they’ll support for a different one.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-justices-more-like-america-column/749326002/

 

My friends' rhetoric is far milder than the conservative barrage of fault finding.

 

Whatever that's supposed to mean.
When you denounce the actions taken by the Demcorats, elected and otherwise, with regard to the confirmation process of Justice Kanavaugh, I'll have reason to take you seriously.

 

Sen. Chuck Schumer Calls Flight Attendant ‘B****.’ “And guess who defended ol’ Chucky? Yep, that would be another raging hypocrite, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.”

 

Really ? ummmm Merick Garland ring any bells ?

 

Its always two sets of rules with these lefties.

 

They need to be crushed.....

 

Refusing to consider a nominee in a presidential election year is not uncommon.

But placing a "victim" with a phony story in front of the senate and lying about a nominee is very uncommon. It's only happened once before, in 1991. Both situations (1991 and this year) were ... deplorable.

 

All enacted laws are technically legal until a court strikes them down.

 

It does.
A -fine- use of the rules.

 

Then the very same can be said for what the Mrs Ford did to Judeg Kavanaugh right ? That would be another “fine use of the rules”

 

OP, wrong. If they get control they will pack it with 4 or 6 progressives. 2 is too conservative for them.

 

Nothin I enjoy more than seeing a whiny liberal get beat at their own game!

 

^^
A -desperate- stretch of the imagination.

 

no....the same.

Ideology does not make one more within the "rules" than the other

 

Bullshit. If it were 2020, do you think Mitch McSkidMark would refuse a Trump appointee?

You and I know the answer.

 

yep, republicans were very short sighted changing the rules on SC picks, now when dems take back power, they take back the SC

did republicans really think they could steal the SC without consequences down the line?

 

Not in the slightest.

 

This is why Trump said he plans to increase the USSC by 4 justices before the end of the year, if the Dems win the house.

 

what would be the point, the right already owns the SC, adding zero more, 4 more, 100 more doesn't make a difference, dems still add more when they take power to take back the SC

 

Good to see you don't have an issue with it.

 

It’s a culture war, started when Ted Kennedy “Borked” Judge Bork.

 

I don't, more jobs for Americans that need them, have at it

 

What would be the point? The GOP still adds more when they take power to take back the SC

 

that is what I said would happen, the SC is now political and will swing both ways depending on the party in power, either far right or far left